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

from mia1 Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 20:20 (Agree/Disagree?) "My the righteous be saved?" You really think there exist such thing as righteous?? Gawd, I could go on and on, but I feel like being nice. And I will not be fake and apologize. Anyone, sigh such deluded souls, that like to quote verses when they are criticizing someone is soooo way off!! I mean like whats with trying to push bible here. Do you honestly think we would believe a word the bible says at this point??? Well maybe there are a few who hang on to the old ways. But jeeze.... I mean, do you think we care, well better said, I care?? I don't give a rats ass about what the bible says or was trying to say!! I don't care if fucking bergy and zerby misinterpreted it, I personally don't give a shit if they were misinterpreting the bible, stop giving excuses. I'm glad berg is dead and will rejoice ( here I am rejoicing) when zerby kicks the bucket!!Fucking bitch can rot in hell if there is even a hell. Whatever!! (reply to this comment)

from AndyH Saturday, December 09, 2006 - 13:09 (Agree/Disagree?) According to the FAQ, the criteria for Trailer Parking an article or comment is if it is considered to be "unnecessarily rude, mean or obscene." For example, when GenB was using all manner of childish disgusting insults, his article was TP'ed, and rightfully so. Using the Bible to find fault with TF might still make you sound like a nutter, but it may be the only vehicle to enlightenment that works for him/her. I often use bible scripture to point out religious hypocrisy, because it's the only language they understand. Point is, if you don't like what's being posted, you can still rate it down, or post critical comments, without sending it to the trailer park. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 09, 2006, 14:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I would like to apologise. I was unaware of these guidelines, but I agree with them. Apologies, Thyatira. You have a right to post this.(reply to this comment)

from Nancy Friday, December 08, 2006 - 06:38 (Agree/Disagree?) What an interesting article! I think some people misunderstood it because the Bible is a touchy subject around here. But if that is what the scriptures say, that is compelling! Unbelievable! We should use this on our own deluded parents to try and use thier own tools to show them how far off track the "just Christian missionaries trying to do God's will" they've gotten. Thanks for the thought put into this. Thanks for posting it. Sorry if some people got so riled. It's just a little hard to tell at first what direction it was coming from being it quotes the Bible. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Friday, December 08, 2006, 09:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Read the last paragraph. Regardless of whether or not the Bible can be twisted to fool retarded culties into believing that some ancient prophet even knew or cared that ol' snaggletooth biaatch was going to exist, the person who wrote this is still a raving lunatic who is convinced that he/she is going to rule and reign with Jeebus when he cleanses the world of wickedness. I think that's what got everyone riled more than just scripture quoting.(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 10:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Absolutely, I agree with Shaka, This person who wrote this is still pretty luney to still be trying to find a paralogue within the bible's ancient text. The bible is such a bad manuscript to try to draw analogies from, because it's been misinterpreted so many times. How bout you try drawing parallels from something like the Cantebury tales, Shakespere's Plays, The Grimm Brothers or even a script of SouthPark will be more appropriate. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) The thought of 'fooling retarded culties'; that's just fucked up! Who would want to do something like that and why? Truth is truth, truth is the only thing that can free anyone's minds, not twisting up some 2,000 year old book that everyone knows can be and has been twisted to mean absolutely anything. Why would we pay the world we came from that much respect? Why would we stoop to that level? It's just unthinkable to me. That's why I nominated this article for the tralier park; nothing to do with Samuel. I just hate seeing this ridiculous superstitious nonsense on this site which for the most part is filled with freethinking and intelligence.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Friday, December 08, 2006, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I know, I wasn't advocating it. I only brought it up cause that's what people seemed to like about this incoherent babble. I was saying that regardless of what good it could possibly do, the author was still a stupid freak.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, December 08, 2006, 19:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Shaka, I'm trying to get this article sent to the Trailer Park. Rain is right, it needs to be done. If you could please help me by nominating the whole article (assuming you haven't already rated it), that would be great. (not specifically for Shaka) If you want to see this article go down to the Trailer Park, please go to the top of the article. Click on "Rate this Article". You can rate it, or you can choose not to. Click on the "nominate" box before you hit "Submit". So far there are three nominations that I know of. 3 down, 2 to go. This article's days are numbered : o ) (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Saturday, December 09, 2006, 03:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Naw, I'm good.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 21:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, time to give it up now. Just let it go...(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 09, 2006, 06:50 (Agree/Disagree?) You've changed your mind? (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 09, 2006, 07:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I didn't mean to suggest you go on a campaign.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 09, 2006, 07:09 (Agree/Disagree?) But that appears to be what you tried to do. You said if you were me you'd try to get it TP'd, and then you asked "Anyone with me?" I'm going to let it go. It doesn't seem like it's going to happen anyway. By the way guys, please read what I wrote above once I had time to think about how I felt. I think the majority of you would agree with it. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 09, 2006, 19:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, Rainchild is not you. You and only you, are Samuel you. You are (at least physically and legally) a full grown adult. Maturity is about responsibility. What did you think about TPing this article? A. You thought hard and agreed it should be TP'd. You then took it on yourself to start a mini campaign to gather votes. B. You randomly agreed with rainchild, although you never really thought about it. You then took it on yourself to start a mini campaign to gather votes. Either way, you were the one who started campaigning. When opposing opinions were voiced, you should have taken it like a man (as opposed to boy, not woman. Am I paranoid now?) rather than bring up Rainchild. That way I would have respected you more. You ask again below, why do people find you annoying, irritating. I am glad we have you here. Simply for the reason that variety and youthful ignorance is important to any society. It keeps things active, and keeps people thinking. I also find you obnoxious, irritating, annoying, for a number of reasons. 1. Naive. 2. Attention whore. 3. Sensitive. 4. Random 5. Self righteous 6. Self centered 7. Cock-sucker (Ass-kisser) Need I explain these?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 09, 2006, 21:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I believed that Rain was giving me advice on how to repair the situation on this thread, which was to TP the whole thing. I had been already been thinknig about asking Admin to remove some of my comments that I had made in haste. I saw this as a way to get rid of the whole article. I still find this article to be an incorrect explanation of Revelation 2 and 3, done hastily and without thinking it through. Remind you of some of my comments on this thread? : o ) "An apostate" and I got into a war. I was ashamed that I had let him pull me into it, and Rain's advice led me to see TPing the whole article as a way of putting an end to the whole debate. When I saw that Rain had changed her mind, I just wanted to make sure that I was reading things right. I decided to drop the issue. I try to be fair to both sides of any debate. Maybe that's naive. There's nothing I can do about that. I believe in fairness. You're wrong, I'm not an attention whore. I am a sensitive person. I'm also a courteous person, which you've probably noticed. I just wish some people would return the favor. I do give people credit for trying. Shaka, Rain, Sara Midwife, thanks for trying. Just so you know, Shaka, I don't have a problem with you cursing so long as you don't write "Holy" before it- that is where my problem with you was. Rain, I think it's great that you are expanding your mind to new things. Knowing that you are a free and thinking independently is true bliss. Sara, you were the first one to try to explain things from a perspective I could understand. You opened my mind up to new ideas, and I thank you for that. I'm hoping we'll be seeing you back on this site soon. I'll be honest, I think comments on this site are too long. If I find something in a comment that I agree with, I jump on it. Online, you can't just speak in the middle of someone's comment. It will be confusing sometimes, until I'm able to drop that habit. I'm more used to talking live with other people that I am to talking online. When talking live, if you have something you want to say, people will usually be quiet and give you a chance to say it before they start talking again. I do have feelings. My feelings have been hurt in the past, my heart has been broken, and I've broken hearts. I know what it feels like to do both. I know what it feels like to be teased and picked on and be called "Fag", "Jesus Freak", and "retard". I know what it feels like to have people make retarded jestures and noises over you while you're trying to talk to your friends. That was middle school for me. I'm sorry if it brings back bad memories when people accuse me of being the same on this site. I try not to be self righteous. If I get angry on here, chances are it's more because someone has decided to insult me or launch a personal attack, than it is about being self righteous. Or if someone attacks one of my friends. I'm very loyal to my friends. I may not agree with them, and I may even voice it, but I will still defend them. If you feel I'm self righteous because I talk about church, my Christmas play, my choice in music, or political stands there's really nothing I can do about that. That's a part of me. That's what you get for talking to me. We're all like that. That's like calling you self righteous because you talk about life in Japan, and how Japanese police don't like paperwork, and how you have dated women of many religions and beliefs. If you think that's self righteous, than I have to wonder if you are really willing to accept me as I am or not. Any arguement that I have on this site is one opinion verses another opinion. It's never Samuel vs. _____, unless that person decided to make it that way. I don't see myself as self centered. I am more than willing to focus my attention on other people and see what I can do to help the situation when someone needs me. I feel obligated to do that, because people have done that for me. If it hadn't been for them, I don't know if I would have made it through school. I believe in being courteous and being nice to people. I'm especially nice to my friends that I've made on here- those who have demonstrated their willingness to accept me as I am. Rain Child is one of them, as is Shaka, Ne Oublie, Anna H, Smashingirrl, Sara Midwife, and others. As I said above, I am very loyal to my friends. And I love to back up the underdog. I try to be nice to just about everyone. I wasn't nice to "an apostate" the other day, but I've apologised for that. That's just the way I am. That does not make me an ass-kisser. Sometiems Oddman, it seems like you are willing to accept me as I am without trying to change me into what you would prefer me to be. Other times I'm not so sure. No, I'm not a cynical person, but I think that's a good thing. There is more to man that just greed and selfishness, and cynical people miss out on that. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 03:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, fun and games, fun and games. "Sometimes Oddman, it seems like you are willing to accept me as I am without trying to change me into what you would prefer me to be. Other times I'm not so sure." I accept you as you are Samuel. Accepting someone doesn't stop me from saying what I think. I won't court, dance, butter you up and bootlick, because I'm not after Samuel brownie points, and I'm not trying to change you. I've been a systemite for 9 years. Don't I know the best way to change someone is to be ridiculously nice if only skin deep. The Sun and the Wind et al. I'm not trying to change you at all. Think of my comment about you as a little free objective analasys. A goodwill gift if you will. A Naive, Self centered, sensitive, brown-nosed attention whore. Perhaps you are none of these things. Perhaps some. Perhaps all. Still, you must be giving off the impression, else I wouldn't think to list them, would I? You're a virgin. You live with your parents. To those of us that left in our early teens, starved, toiled, got a job, got a flat, lost a job, went broke, lived in a car, tried therapy, took a loan, quit therapy, tried at least double digit numbers of different kinds of euphoria inducing substances, got in fights, sued someone, got sued, had sex with enough people to forget names, scammed, been scammed, broke some hearts, broke some bones, you might seem a bit inexperienced in life. Quite early in my life experience, I learned that people aren't always nice. I realized that they weren't obliged to be nice. I stopped expecting people to be nice. I'm nice when I want to be, just like everybody else. Naive doesn't mean you're stupid, and it doesn't mean your opinion is wrong. It means you don't have street smarts. You're a country boy in a urban jungle. Attention whore. You keep drawing attention back to your old comments, and participate in every single debate. You speak extensively about yourself. You try to explain yourself. That's an attention whore. Sensitive. I think this is a symptom of your self centered approach to life. If you are fat, laugh at fat jokes. If you're black, laugh at black jokes. Nobody can hurt you unless you let them. Develop a sense of humor, please. People around you are always more objective about you than you are. Always. Besides, does it matter what people think of you? I'd debate an opinion forever, but if I get the bird from someone I normally shrug it off as an ineffective cheap shot. Hardly anyone here has thrown in-your-face invectives. You just seem to take things waay too seriously. Ass-kisser. It's nice to be nice. It's nice when someone is nice to you. It's nice. And it's just nice, nothing more. Sometimes you need to be brutal. Sometimes, you need to hold your ground and show your worth. Prove your mettle. It's nice to root for the underdog isn't it. But often the twerp caught between the 3 muscle-heads is in the wrong. Being the underdog doesn't make him right. Other times, the twerp is the black belt, and the last thing he needs in an amateur helper fucking with his fight. Oh, and while I'd root for the underdog, I'll bet on the doberman, thank you. It all points back to your self centered nature. You want everyone to look at you, accept you, and like you. You want to be babied. I didn't see the "school for special children with special needs" sign anywhere... Did I miss it? I don't think you ever got over TF thinking. In TF, you could bullshit your way through anything. Nobody cared about your face. All people cared about was your mask. If you acted nice, you were a nice guy. In the real world, people aren't always so naive. Extremely nice people are full of shit, and people who are nice to brats are child molesters. The new friend you made at the bar is waiting for a chance to slip you a mickey, and he's putting his drinks on your tab. When you've been in the world a while, you get a little cynical. Your pattern tells me that whatever your opinion is, you consider yourself superior, untainted, and deserve to be heard. Newsflash!! Nobody is waiting with bated breath for you to comment on anything. Just take a chill pill and kick back. Why do you have to explain yourself, all the time? If someone calls you a brainless attention whore, try and take it in good humor. "Okay, I'm whoring, but this is one bling hooker. You can't afford me."(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay Oddman. It's good advice,and I'll try to heed it. Okay, maybe I am a bit naive. I like being nice to people. If someone takes advantage of me, I know because I feel bad afterwards. And I know to avoid that person and continue being nice to people. Just because one person found a way to take advantage of me, that's no reason people I like should have to suffer. And maybe I am an attention whore. My favorite debates have to do with politics, it's an issue I enjoy. I think you can learn a lot by arguing politics with someone, or even just watching other people argue politics. Yes, I am sensitive. I'm also sensitive to the needs of others. I do have a sense of humor, but I also have feelings. If someone says something nasty about me on this site for everyone to read, IMO there's no honor in just letting it go. If someone said that to me somewhere else, I might let it go and laugh it off. When someone posts it on a site where they know everyone can read it, where's the honor in just letting that person walk all over you? I can be brutal when I have to. But I don't like to, and I usually feel guilty about it afterwards. You say I'm self centered because I was asking people to read my newest comments before they responded. I wasn't trying to draw attention to myself, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't want to draw attention to myself. At this point, I'm actually trying to draw attention away from myself. I'm going to try to remember all this, Oddman. Hopefully if I take your advice to heart it will help. (reply to this comment)

From afflick Sunday, December 10, 2006, 06:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I do wait with baited breath for a comment from Samuel, especially a long comment. I love them, they are like Christmas to me. (reply to this comment)

From Eric Cartman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 13:57 (Agree/Disagree?) "I hate christmas, I'm glad it only comes one time a year....Sing it like you mean it. Deck the halls with boughs of holly, tis the season to be jolly, but I hate christmas, I'm glad it only comes one time a year."(reply to this comment)

From somebody Thursday, December 14, 2006, 07:39 (Agree/Disagree?) nice zebrahead quote...very random though lol(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Oddman wants to see a three-way debate on religion. Introducing tonights panelists.... On the right, we have Samuel, the champion of faith. On the left, we have Sean Swede and his hand puppet TTIOT, champion of Dan Brownism and religious intolerance. In centerfield, we have Ne Oublie, who champions I don't give a shitism, and approaches religion from an angle other than believe/deny. Guest commentators.... Rainchild, Shaka, Shikaka, Vixen, Nancy, Sara Midwife, AndyH, AnnaH, afflick and Baxter. Oddman will sit in the crowd with a basket of pies, eggs and tomatos. Special guest referee........Joe H. I swear everytime I go to the rememberance section, I wonder why there isn't a eulogy for Joe.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Sunday, December 10, 2006, 14:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know whether to be insulted that I wasn't included in this illustrious group of basket cases and fellow nut jobs, or flattered that I'm insignificant enough to be glanced over! I know the attention whore in me is insulted! Then there's the fact that I'm one of the more verbal of Samuel's abusers, and so feel as though my place in this debate was reserved/pre-ordained. Perhaps I could guest antagonize? :-D(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 18:57 (Agree/Disagree?) You can be the sleeper guest in a muscle shirt, that will find an appropriate moment to run on stage and throat chop a panelist. You have to sign a form, swearing not to hold the show liable if you are injured while security tries to remove you.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Monday, December 11, 2006, 00:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Sweet! I hope everyone's signing that lawsuit protection form. I'd hate to be liable for my throat chop against a panellist and any injuries that your security sustains while removing me forcibly from the premises. (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, December 10, 2006, 12:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Ahhh, wouldn't that be grand? Maybe I can convince him to make an appearance, just the one time. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:40 (Agree/Disagree?) You missed sar who has already begun the offence on religion in her post below.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, solly solly. She can sit in the crowd and participate Jerry Springer style. Baxter and Xhrisl should be the security dudes. Now all we need are some pissed off midgets.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, December 10, 2006, 13:16 (Agree/Disagree?) That'ed be me, one angry midget reporting for duty.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 19:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Lisa... If midget is reference to your height, that makes two of us. I just realized I've probably met you somewhere, prolly in Tokyo or some random camp. Though to be honest, I don't remember at all. If you knew Maria.A.A in Setagaya, then I'm quite sure you and I would have met somewhere. I knew her very very briefly, around the time I was out, but frequenting TF parties and camps for amusement.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Monday, December 11, 2006, 01:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I feel so loved. Just out of curiosity, what else would make me a midget?(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 02:41 (Agree/Disagree?) You are loved. Happy Birthday. http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/downloads/music/happybirthdaylisa.mp3(reply to this comment)

From lisa Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 14:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Groan, it's started already! Thats twice I've heard it today and its only 8am your well on your way to breaking last years record of 13. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 05:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Rain, if The Simpson's is truly the funniest thing they let you watch in Australia, then I feel sorry for you guys. We have such good stuff here. Scrubs, Carlos Mencia, Eight Simple Rules for Dating my Teenage Daughter, Yes Dear, Jay Leno. Even "The Dave Chapelle Show" is okay every once in a while. I actually saw this book by Jeff Foxworthy at Sam's Club yesterday and thought of Shaka's sense of humor, but I didn't get the book. No, Shaka, that's not meant as an insult. He's actually quite funny.(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 21:50 (Agree/Disagree?) lol that's rich. The pole-up-his-ass-conservative-christian 26yr old-virgin trying to prove he has a sense of humour. btw Samuel, I think Shaka's married.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 07:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, why would an Aussie person posting a link to the Simpsons lead you to believe that The Simpsons is the funniest thing on TV in Australia? Aussie humor rocks, The Simpsons fucking rock, and the comment was dumb. And Jeff Foxworthy sucks compared to Ron White.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 17:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Point taken, Shaka. And if a guy with your sense of humor thinks a comedian is funnier than Jeff Foxworthy, then I guess I should probably check him out. I'm sure you wouldn't let me down in the humor department.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, real life Aussies certainly beat real life Americans in the humor department. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 07:35 (Agree/Disagree?) If you think Aussie's can't do comedy like Americans, think again. Aussie humor is a bit off-beat, but still very enjoyable. I laughed all the way through Wog Boy. If you get UK humor (i.e. Black Books), you'd likely get Aussie humor too. But yeah, America's got her share of fine comedians. Dave Chapelle, Chris Rock, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Jeff Foxworthy are certainly worth a mention. (reply to this comment)

From openmind Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:16 (Agree/Disagree?) aussies are good at doing stupid things for the heck of it i.e. who dares wins .... who des ... who des ... wiiiiinnnsss!!! (scene in supermarket) hoy mite i'm moike whitney from who des wins how ya goin' mite... awww no warries ... no warries mite ... mite, oym gonna day you to eat thes cow toungue whoddaya think mite? you'll get 20 bucks ... no? no? anyone? 20 bucks for who-eva eats this ceow tongue ... hoy mite whats your nime? ("jeff") well jeff, if you ken eat this ceow tongue... oyl gev you 20 bucks ("20 bucks?") ... thets roit mite ... no warries ... no warries mite... (*munch munch*) ... now how does it taste mite? ("abit rough on the way deown") ... heh abit rough on the way deown he ses! ... lydies en gentlemen... we hev a winnah... here ya go 20 bucks fair dinkum mate... ... and beck to you tanya(reply to this comment)

From lisa Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 23:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Oy Jap Jap I don't think you should be pointing the fingure at cultures, who do stupid things on tv.(reply to this comment)

From openmind Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 23:51 (Agree/Disagree?) ... yes but i'm not a jap ...(reply to this comment)

From lisa Thursday, December 14, 2006, 02:28 (Agree/Disagree?) dang it(reply to this comment)

From openmind Thursday, December 14, 2006, 04:17 (Agree/Disagree?) that's alrite ... happy birthday lisa!(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 21:41 (Agree/Disagree?) eheh... Mike Whitney's a bit of a tosser though.(reply to this comment)

From wise words to a moron Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 05:36 (Agree/Disagree?) You fucking idiot! Rain's younger sister is Lisa, and The Simpsons (voted the best cartoon series ever, by the way) have a character named Lisa who is Bart's little sister. The link was a birthday song, to a younger sister named Lisa. The fact that it was from a truly great television cartoon was simply a bonus. Now, on to why I think you're a fucking idiot for the above post only. What the fuck do you care what people watch in Australia, or anywhere else on the planet we call earth? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you trying to be some sort of movingon.org monitor who regulates people's source of entertainment content and suggests music to listen to and what to find funny or not? You complain when people get involved in 'calling your friends names' in here, but find it suitable to get involved in what you consider watchable TV by one of these very same people that you consider (consider being a very key word in this sentance, dumbass) a friend. What you find funny and what others find funny are usually going to be very, very different. The Simpsons is one of the most intelligently funny shows ever to be broadcast anywhere in the world, considered to be so by many millions of people worldwide. I personally don't care if you do or you don't like The Simpsons, but don't try to tell anyone what they should think is funny if you want to retain even the slightest facsimile of friendship with anyone on this site.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 17:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I know that Lisa is Rain's sister. I was just joking with her because I see she likes The Simpson's. She did an article with quotes from them on here a little while back. It's just that for me, they're a bit old. I liked them for a while, and I overgrew them. The main reason behind leaving that comment was to see if they have any of those shows in Australia. I know in Italy they have hardly any of them (they still show old 'Roseanne' episodes in Italian over there). I'm sure the Australians are just as good at comedy as Americans are. I'd like to see some of them on TV here. And I was kinda curious as to which ones are on TV over there.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Thursday, December 14, 2006, 02:37 (Agree/Disagree?) If the main reason for your idiotic post was to find out what kind of TV shows they have in Australia, why the fuck didn't you say something along the lines of; "hey, enough of The Simpsons already. Don't they air anything else on TV over in Australia?". That sort of comment at least doesn't come across as you being a moron. No one cares about what airs in Italian in Italy, and if you wanted to know what was on in Autralia, just say so. Don't post something pointless, and then justify by saying you were trying to by cryptic. If there's anyone on this site who doesn't know how to be cryptic, it's you. By the way, Happy Birthday Lisa!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, December 10, 2006, 13:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Alright, so now I just need something more specific to "not give a shit" about... Mine is a re-active position, give me something to react to.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, December 10, 2006, 13:15 (Agree/Disagree?) That'ed be me(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll be there.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 12:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't worry, Shaka. I know you're in Iraq. I'll tape it for you.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 03:36 (Agree/Disagree?) analysis*(reply to this comment)

From vix * Sunday, December 10, 2006, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Brilliantly done, Oddman. Do me, do me! *attention whore extraordinaire (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, that makes three of us then. We might as well start attentionwhores-R-us.org.(reply to this comment)

From openmind Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 00:16 (Agree/Disagree?) i'm an attention slut does that make me an attention whore?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 01:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, seeing that none of us are being paid for what we do, we're all attention sluts rather than whores. On the other hand, I understand the word "whore" was derived from a word meaning "to desire", in which case "attention whore" would make perfect sense. I have some thoughts on the term slut. The term "slut" has an extremely negative connotation. A trashy, cheap, skanky, adulturer. What word or term is there to describe a male equivalent? Playboy? Ladies' man? Lover boy? Night owl? Night Hawk? Rounder? Player? Casanova? Don Juan? Seducer? Romeo? Heartbreaker? Sounds kind of suave. James Bond. James Dean. Whorehound? Whoremonger? Sounds like a pathetic needle prick who needs an introduction from Benjamin to get laid? The only term with a strong negative connotation to me would be womanizer and philanderer. Womanizer sounds like a tactful predator, in control of the situation. Philanderer? "To carry on a sexual affair, especially an extramarital affair, with a woman one cannot or does not intend to marry." It's rather specific. Not like "slut". Maybe tomcat has minimal nuance. Yet another subtle reminder of the history that built our society.(reply to this comment)

From openmind Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 02:19 (Agree/Disagree?) ... yes and I volunter to be an attention pimp(reply to this comment)

From Eric Cartman Thursday, December 14, 2006, 05:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Undercover attention cop.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 09:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, whoever is typing in other people's names, please stop. If it was okay, Admininstration would have set things up so you could sign in as someone else whenever you wanted. And for the record, I see nothing about Vix that would identify her as an attention whore, or any kind of whore for that matter. It's disrespectful to the person you're making a half assed attempt at impersonating, it's annoying to those of us who have to read through it, and it fills up the threads with needless dribble. So please stop. I think you owe Vix and the rest of us an apology.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! That was most likely vix joking around about herself as she often does. If so, your comment falls under needless dribble. If not, it was still just a joke, none of your business and nobody owes you or anybody else an apology. And your comment would still be needless dribble. Dude, you really don't need to comment on everything you see. You cram your foot in your cyber mouth almost every time you open it. For your own sake, stop.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, yeah it was me :-) (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Thought so you little attention whore. ;P(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:22 (Agree/Disagree?) What can I say, Shaka? I'm loyal to my friends. And any friend of Rain Child is a friend of mine. I've seen that kind of thing happen before. I decided that if I felt Vix needed someone to look out for her or defend her, I was going to do it.(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought you were gay Samuel.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:40 (Agree/Disagree?) what the fuck does that have to do with what he said Ass muncher oooooooo I almost forgot GBAKY (reply to this comment)

From neezy Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:45 (Agree/Disagree?) XYZ(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:38 (Agree/Disagree?) She doesn't, nor does anyone else here. Almost all the people who frequent this site have been on their own for quite some time. They can look out for themselves just fine. There's a time for everything and I think learning the time to speak will do you wonders.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The time to speak is when someone is being attacked. In general, people can say whatever they want about me, but when they attack my friends, all Hell breaks loose. I was rather mild when I tried to defend Vix. What you guys seem to be suggesting that I do is become more cynical, don't defend my friends, and quit being nice to people. That's not the kind of person I want to be, though. I'm happy as I am. I just wish people on this site would be willing to accept that I'm different from them. If everyone in the world was cynical, and no one looked out for anyone else, and no one was ever nice to people, what kind of world would that be? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world like that.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Whenever a stupid friend get's himself into a fight, I tell him "look, I'm your friend. If you want to take out this giant, I'm right behind you. And that's where I'm staying." Well, unless I'm in a bad mood, or hate the fucker he's up against. I'd only intervene if he's taken enough hits, and the other dude won't ease down. Why? He's getting into a fight because he thinks he can handle it. If he can, he doesn't need my help. If he can't, he needs to learn his limits. Let him boost his ego, or wait till his ego is torn to pieces, and feed it to the shredder. Does that make me a bad friend? I don't think so. My friends know that when push comes to shove, I'd bite a bullet for them. They don't want to put me in that situation. I agree, people need to look out for their friends. That doesn't mean they need secret service strangling up the paparazzi. That doesn't mean you need to test all their food before they eat. If vix stood up and cried foul, then it would have been the prime moment for you to show your support. Since you jumped the gun, you look like Johnny English.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 12:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Point taken. I guess I'm extremely loyal to my friends because if it hadn't been for my friends I might never have made it out of middle school. Those were the people that would literally seek me out when I didn't want to talk about my problems. I didn't know what was best for me and didn't think they would understand (most of them were girls). You have a point, friends have to learn to fight for themselves. But Oddman, depending on the situation- I would probably do the same for you. Or Shaka. Or any of my friends. That's just the kind of person I am. Maybe it's one of my flaws. I guess not guarding my friends so fiercely could help them, though. Oddman, I e-mailed Shaka and told him that any arguement we have on this site if opinion verses opinion. It's never Shaka vs. Samuel or Oddman vs. Samuel. I'm not even sure about "an apostate". If he's willing to be civil, I can be civil toward him. If not, I'm willing to try to be civil toward him. The point is, I am not trying to start a bitter arguement. I am just getting my thoughts and feelings out there, and seeing how they they stand up to criticism. What is a valid arguement, and what is not. I'm not here to change who I am. I'm here to imrpove myself. When you stop improving yourself, you stop living. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:16 (Agree/Disagree?) We're making these suggestions because you're always making an ass of yourself. Obviously you don't see it (as I'm sure the lengthy comment following this will state) but I assure you, everyone else does. But I give up now. Enjoy the verbal ass-reaming. I'm out.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I think vix can speak 4 herself , you just made an ass of your self 4 no reson , why ?(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:28 (Agree/Disagree?) You forgot the "GBY" at the end of your post.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:37 (Agree/Disagree?) get a life(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:41 (Agree/Disagree?) That's not turning the other cheek. GFY (one guess what that stands for).(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, December 11, 2006, 11:15 (Agree/Disagree?) The return of Huck, my hero!! "Hey, that's not turning the other cheek." "Well I've only got two cheeks Huck." Huck's only error was his failure to bully Berg to death. What was the name of that silly chick Berg was all hot for?(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 21:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps Berg started the whole cult 'worship my excrement' thing simply to make up for being a lil' bitch at school. But then again I seem to remember a picture of Huck swinging at Berg and completely missing him due to Bergs shortassness, which is completely ridiculous unless Huck was in the special ed class. So I'm guessing that whole story was complete bullshit. The chick probably spread a rumour around school that Berg was gay after he gave her a sermon then tried to kiss her.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 11, 2006, 17:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Her name was Lorna.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, December 11, 2006, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn, if I were Huck... "I've only got two cheeks Huck." "Only two cheeks? Cheeky bastard, I'll teach you bit of anatomy." And on to a good ass whooping, complete with ass cheeks bleeding so bad Berg wouldn't sit on his ass for a good two weeks. Let's see, the shoehorn, the slipper, the Sunday Times, the belt, the coat hanger, the flyswatter, the engraved rod, the pingpong paddle, and last but not least, the aerodynamic love paddle.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Monday, December 11, 2006, 16:12 (Agree/Disagree?) "Thank you for correcting me."(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:46 (Agree/Disagree?) ok I u know I'm jokeing when I use ugly phrases like that(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:48 (Agree/Disagree?) " ok I HOPE u know" is what I meant(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:54 (Agree/Disagree?) How could I possibly compete with phrases such as "get a life" and "ass muncher". Hey look...a wombat.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 22:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know how could you compete, are you giving up already?(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 22:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Well I could always point out your incorrect spelling of the word 'joking'. But nah I have things to see, people to do.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 22:14 (Agree/Disagree?) tks neez next time i'll spell it right(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 02:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Jesus titty-fucking Christ! Sorry, tourettes. :D I have to agree with some of the points that Oddman made. (And please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just trying to help you see why people get on your case so much) I would never be the kind of person to call you fag or retard, although I might call you jesus freak while drunk, it's happened before with other Christian friends, heh heh. You are naive and it has nothing to do with seeing both sides of a debate, I don't know where you got that. You're naive in that you are completely clueless in many ways, I guess some people would call it street sense. You do not understand hints, subtle or not. Sarcasm might as well be speaking Swahili to you, it flies right over your head, even blatant sarcasm. You seem to be unaware of of many of the simple facts of life. Sometimes talking to you is like listening to a child. A well-spoken child but still a child. Yes, you are an attention whore. Who isn't? I'll admit that so am I in many ways. In a group of friends I'm often the center of attention or ringleader in our misdeeds and I'll admit I like it that way. But you desperately try to seek approval and tell people outright to read something you wrote which is kinda lame. If you want people to notice you a hint would work better than telling them outright (refer to above paragraph about subtlety). Or just actually say or do something noteworthy. Yeah, you're sensitive but shit, I won't hold that against you. It wouldn't hurt for your own sake though to grow a little tougher hide and learn to fight back a bit. In this day and age a thick skin is an absolute must if your ever want to make it on your own. Self-righteous and self-centered kinda fall under the same category. You go into great detail about yourself, most of which people really didn't need or care to know. It's good that you wanted to open up to people but there's a line that's not good to cross. And I would advise against telling personal issues on an open web page unless you want them to be torn apart and picked through. Yes, you focus on others which is admirable but you do tend talk about yourself a bit more than people really want to hear. As far as being an ass-kisser I wouldn't say you're over the top. I sure as hell know a lot bigger brown-nosers than you. You are a bit fawning though which falls under attention whore and self-centered as well. I guess I could attribute that to living with your parents for 26 years and being used to seeking their approval. Anyway, I don't want you to take this too personally. You're a nice guy and I don't want to see you get jumped on and torn up as much as you do which is why I tell you this. I'm brutally honest so if you're gonna know me a thick skin is helpful like I mentioned before. Take it easy.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 09:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Shaka, It sounds like you're making fun of people with tourettes syndrome. I know you're just joking, but I don't think my friend at my old Publix would find that very funny. She didn't have tourettes, but she had a similar problem that made it difficult for her to communicate sometimes and think clearly. And she'd get distracted from her job easily. That never stopped her from trying her best. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Did I really need to know that? Does your friend have anything whatsoever to do with me and this conversation? Do I give a single rat shit? No.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:07 (Agree/Disagree?) What I was getting at is what you said is disrespectful to people that have tourette's syndrome.(reply to this comment)

From weegirlie Monday, December 11, 2006, 08:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Only tourette's sufferers without a trace of a sense of humour. ;)(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Well fuck me sideways, I hadn't thought of that. Oh wait....yeah I did. Sue me.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, you're still my friend. Just because you say something nasty doesn't mean I'm going to sue you : o )(reply to this comment)

From openmind Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 18:25 (Agree/Disagree?) you are my friend... and you are not my friend... you are part of my game ... and you are not part of my game ... now let's go and play mommy and daddy(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 10:34 (Agree/Disagree?) "Sue me" is an expression. Oh, never mind. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, this is why I think commenting shouldn't be censored. Makes for such good entertainment. But god Shaka, your tolerance amazes me.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 11:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh it's amazed the fuck out of me too. If he was in the army I'd have choked him already. (reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Where can I sign him up?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 05:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, Shaka and Oddman. Thanks guys for explaining how you feel in a nice way. That's all I ask. You can disagree with me all you want. But there's no need to resort to insults or taking cheap shots at someone ( not that either of you just did that. This is for those of you who did that. ) I won't take this personally, Shaka. I usually don't take criticism personally, unless someone decided to make it personal. I still don't understand what makes me an attention whore on here. I don't act like that at work, so I don't know. Maybe I'm just giving off that vibe. I just want to make sure that if someone is going to read what I say, they understand me completely. I know there are people on this site that don't like me and I don't want them to be able to take something I say out of context or anything. I guess that comes from being raised in The Family. Whenever they had a clip of one of TF's spokespersons saying something that sounded bad, they'd say he was misquoted or taken out of context. I'm trying not to take things so personally. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, December 10, 2006, 08:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh believe me, everyone understands you completely. That's why they're attacking you. From what I've read so far nobody has taken anything you've said out of context. They criticized what you said accurately then received a long explanation of the exact thing they were shitting on you for. When people have jumped on what you write it's often been well deserved. Maybe they've been harsh with you but I can't really blame them as I've said much worse to people on here many times. And I apologize in advance for all the Holy Fucks and Shits I throw your way. That's how I talk. I change for no one. (reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 02:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck you're a boring deadshit samuel.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Saturday, December 09, 2006, 20:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, spoken like a true scholar and a gentleman! (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Saturday, December 09, 2006, 11:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Well? Where is it? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 09, 2006, 18:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry guys, it's actually below here. The one where I said I had had time to think about about what it. I did an analysis of each part of the scripture mentioned above, and explained how some of the guys on here had it right, or at least had a point. Shaka, when I talk about people on here unfair to me, I'm not talking about you. You have actually shown an effort to be fair, which I find to be commendable because I know how you feel about religious extremists and it appears that you see me as one. If you don't, I apologise, but it does seem that way to me. And I do give you credit for not referring to The Family as fundamentalist. They are anything but. Any hint at fundamentalism is merely a part of their PR campaign, and as a true fundamentalist, that is offensive to me. I think you would agree with most of what I said below. That the scripture in Revelation has nothing to do with Zerby or Ricky, and that it's useless to try to interpret Bible prophecy. That "an apostate" and I both overreacted. I'm going to have to start taking your advice, Shaka, and just walk away from the site for a while when these flame wars start until everyone has had their say. It seems "An apostate" and I have something in common, we're both pretty emotional people and want to comment on everything right away without thinking first. (reply to this comment)

From an apostate Saturday, December 09, 2006, 18:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for speaking for me! You really get me! Thank you so much for understanding! Clearly you and I are so similar! Gosh, I'm just gushing! If I thought you wouldn't take it the wrong way, I'd even say 'I love you!'.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 09, 2006, 18:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Is that how you feel or are you just being sarcastic? Now you see why it's hard to understand you sometimes. I don't know if you're being serious or if you're being sarcastic. I honestly think that you and I are both emotional people that have started a habit of commenting as soon as they find something they don't like, without thinking about it first. That's what we did the other day, if you ask me. Maybe I'm overanalyzing things.(reply to this comment)

From Lisa(not at her computer) Saturday, December 09, 2006, 19:01 (Agree/Disagree?) No that's becuse your a fuckwit, who can't keep up. I don't care what the lot of you say about bullying, if Samuel is going to continue posting such utter attention seeking drivel , then we should be allowed to tell him just how offensive and irritating he is. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, December 09, 2006, 19:30 (Agree/Disagree?) What is it about me that is so offensive, Lisa? What is it about me that is so irritating? I'm sure you're an intelligent person. I'd like to see you prove it by backing up your claims that I'm offensive and irritating. I don't know what makes you think I'm seeking attention. All I want is to be understood. I already know that you don't like me, but I'm still trying to figure out why. Don't say it's because I post on here, as a person raised in The Family I have as much right to be here as you do. There's got to be more to it than that.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, December 10, 2006, 00:25 (Agree/Disagree?) What is it about me is it that’s so offensive, Lisa? Most of your opinions on things, but that’s cool each to his own. I just want to reserve the right to call you on it when you express an opinion that offends everything I believe in. I'm sure you're an intelligent person. I'd like to see you prove it by backing up your claims that I'm offensive and irritating This is an idiotic statement, my finding you offensive and irritating, is an emotional reaction, I cannot prove that you are offensive and irritating. Why I think your attention seeking: By the way guys, please read what I wrote above once I had time to think about how I felt. I think the majority of you would agree with it. Sorry guys, it's actually below here. The one where I said I had had time to think about what it. I did an analysis of each part of the scripture mentioned above, and explained how some of the guys on here had it right, or at least had a point. I already know that you don't like me, but I'm still trying to figure out why. Don't say it's because I post on here, as a person raised in The Family I have as much right to be here as you do. There's got to be more to it than that. Don’t you dare, try and hide behind something like that, it’s a pathetic defense. I fully support your right to be here, as far as I am aware I have never once said that you shouldn’t be allowed to post here, or that you don’t have a right to your opinion. I think you should be allowed to post whatever comes into your Christian-country-music loving little head. I also think that when someone like me finds, pretty much ever opinion you express offensive we should be able to tell you such. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 04:51 (Agree/Disagree?) And what is it that I say that offends everything you believe in? You're holding something back. You're not being specific? Is it becasue I like Country music? Is it because I'm a Christian? Those are the only things that you even vaguely referred to. Maybe it's something else. Maybe you don't know what is it. But I would hope it's more than just my religion or choice of music. That's rather petty if you ask me. You have every right to tell me if what I say is offensive or irritating. I'd just like to see you back up your claims. Yes, I asked people to read the explanation that I gave after I had to time to think about what I had said and what this thread was all about. Sometimes I have a lot to say. People have a tendency to skip over things that are long. But if someone's going to read the shorter posts that I wrote on here before, they should also know that in the end I had time to think about things and I wrote something else that better reflects my current views and opinions. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, December 10, 2006, 13:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I feel an intense need to repeatedly bash my head against a brick wall. Once again you have completely managed to miss the point. You picked up on a completely irelevent point and made that the focus of your argument. If I have said that pretty much every opinion you have offends me, then don’t ask me which ones just go back and pick any random subject and you can be pretty sure I disagree with you, which IS FINE!! Why do you care? You asked me what annoyed me, how about your superior attitude, ‘most people do this’ If what you said was even slightly interesting people would have commented on it. The fact that they didn’t and then you felt compelled to point it out to them, twice, comes across as you thinking your opinion is so very important that we should all rush out and read it. You babble on and on about protecting your friends etc, when in fact most people on this site have known each other for a lot longer then they’ve known you so stop trying to play hero. I am not holding anything back; you’re just too dense to understand what I am saying. Or maybe its something else maybe you don’t know why? I certainty don’t know why I’m still going on about this, oh if only I had learned to let it pass my friend…. WE are all the lord’s children, hallelujah praise you lord; we thank you sweet Jesus for our brother Samuel lord…. Aaaaaaahhhhh I’m melting, melting I’m melting, you are not compatible, exterminate.. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Is that an earthquake? No, it's lisa twiching from frusteration. Lisa, however it's expressed, I so very totally understand your frusteration. Now, let's sing a song to allay your frusteration. Helping hands, helping on another, let's do all we can, with our helping hands, oh let's do all we can, wiiiiith ooour heeelping haaaands. feel better?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 18:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't let it get to you, Lisa. I really don't care if you agree with me or like me or not. There are other people on this website that are willing to accept me as I am. They don't expect me to change for them. What I said might not have been interesting, but the topic was at least interesting enough to start a debate on the site. I'm sure you think there's no way a loser like me could make friends, but that's wrong. I have many friends, some of them on this site. I never asked anyone to write comments on my comments. But I noticed from what they were writing that they had not read my latest, most current comments. These are the most accurate representations of my feelings that exist on this site at the moment. It all comes down to: don't comment on something until you've read it all. I had to learn that lesson the hard way. Now you're not holding anything back. We're finally getting to what your problem with me is. My advice to you is to move on, and don't let my quirky personality cramp your style. I think you'll be happier that way, and that's what really matters. "Every man has his own quirks and twists", Harriet Beecher Stowe. (reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, December 10, 2006, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Religion is far from petty. Billions of people run their lives according to their religion. A lot more people have been killed because of religious teachings and doctrines. Religion stunts progression of society and rational thinking, enforcing doctrines and customs that may have been beneficial to society 4000 years ago, but are no longer beneficial. Christians think that they can back up their belief in the Bible by looking to the good values that the Bible promotes. They ignore the fact that the Bible promotes bad values (inequality of the sexes (Adam and Eve), opression (even killing) of homosexuals (Sodom and Gommorah), rape (David and Absolom), and following without questioning (Jesus, etc) even if you are told to kill your children (Abraham and Isaac)). If you are a Christian you may find those values to be good values and that is the reason I think Christianity has lost its value. It goes against what are now widely accepted human rights, including freedom of thought. I find it odd that you consider something so fundamental and contentious to be petty. I may have spelt some of the biblical names wrong, but I don't have a Bible and wouldn't be bothered to look it up anyway. I'm sure there are many more bad "moralities" that the Bible promotes and each religion has a their own set, those are just a few off the top of my head.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) But that's no reason to dislike someone.(reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, December 11, 2006, 18:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, I would very much like to know what you think is good reason to dislike someone.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 11, 2006, 18:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, sar, I'll assume that you are being sincere and are not just trying to get me to keep talking about this again so we can argue it for another two days. If someone actually wrongs you, and you know that that person feels no remorse, even after being confronted- that's a reason to dislike them. If someone steals your car, money, or other things that belong to you, that's a good reason to call the police, and dislike them. If someone physically attacks you or your friends, that is a good reason to call the police, and dislike them If someone takes over a church youth group and starts a cult, sleeps with his secretary, leaves his wife without a proper divorce, calls himself a prophet, tells his female followers that they should prostitute themselves to make new converts to the cult and make nude videos for him on their off time, breaks up families and takes their kids away for indoctrination, has sex with little girls, introduces children to sex as an early age, and convinces members all of the world to pound the pavements selling his shit and sending 10% of their income to him so he can live in luxury and secrecy as a fugitive from justice, and deprives children in that cult of an education- that is a VERY good reason to hate his guts! And that is a good reason to hope that his mistress and her new boyfriend rot in jail for what they did to all of us! In my opinion, there a few good reasons to dislike someone. We're all humans, we all have the same needs. Choice of religion, or choice of music are poor reasons for disliking someone. But that's just how I feel. As a Christian, I believe that God does not want me to hate people. And those are certainly no reason for killing someone. It may come as a surprise to you that my friends do things that annoy or irritate me also. But I don't hold it against them, I just accept it as part of their personality. (reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, December 11, 2006, 19:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, I'm not sure how to answer this. I will only take your points briefly as I'm sure we'll have common beliefs that are not worth going into. I'm not sure I understood all of what you said. When someone supports a religion that oppresses me they do harm me, albeit indirectly. I think that someone thinking it would be good to kill me because of my sex or the sex of my partner is more of a reason to dislike someone than someone stealing from me. You say that if someone physically attacks you than that is good reason to dislike them, but religious groups are responsible for so many atrocities and even campaign to get laws changed so that society will adhere to values they don't even question. I don't think that someone sleeping with his secretary or leaving his wife without a proper divorce is half as good reason. I do agree that one has good reason to dislike, even kill, peodophiles and people who incite peodophilia. I agree that we, on this website, are all humans, but not that we have the same needs. My point earlier was that I think it is justified to dislike someone who supports a doctrine that does a society that I am part of a great deal of harm. Most of the bad things that religions support are not legal. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, December 11, 2006, 20:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Sar, I was referring to David berg. I hate his guts, yes. And he deserves it too. You say that someone is supporting a religion a religion that oppresses you they do you harm. Who are you referring to? I don't understand what you're getting at when you say most of the bad things that religions support are not legal. My question would have to be, which religions? Which religious groups? Does this have anything to do with gay marriage? Because I've already discussed that on this site. At the moment, the way I see it is they can get married, I really don't care. You won't see me at any gay weddings, though. But I'm still looking at the issue, trying to be fair to both sides in the debate. I'm not going to go too far into this, because I don't know if you're gay or if you're just using a hypothetical situation. Maybe I should know, but I don't know you that well. I'll be happy to answer your questions, once it's clear what they are. (reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 05:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I know you were referring to David Berg, I thought him leaving his wife and all is not good reason to hate him. There are plenty better reasons to hate him. As far as bad things that religions support, take domestic violence for an example. The Bible says that its okay for a man to beat his wife so long as the stick he uses is no thicker than his thumb. The Koran has a similar provision. Both books also support violence against children. I'm not sure what the position is in the states at the moment, but in the UK it is now illegal to use violence against your wife or children. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. Though the Christian idea of marriage and the biblical doctrine of conjugal unity is offensive and oppressive to women. It also prevents people from taking the legal benefits of marriage because of religious connontations. I was using a hypothetical example about gays, there are countries where you can be legally put to death for committing homosexual acts. It is mostly Muslim countries that retain that view, but it is supported by the Bible as well. The way I see it, so long as we look at religious versions of morality instead of looking logically and objectively at whether or not what a person is doing is harming another person or society as a whole, society cannot develop. Religion (whichever one) does not allow for objective analysis. I have intentionally referred to the Bible and the Koran rather than Shiah, Sunni, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, as religious groups take things out of proportion, but I wanted to show that it is the core texts itself that are harmful and that it cannot all be blamed on people using the texts for their own benefit.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) But in most cases that's what has happened. People who think the Levitical law is so important that homosexuals should be stoned probably see nothing wrong with sitting down and eating fried chicken. But both of those laws are in the same chapters. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? While I believe it would be immoral for me to engage in homosexual behaviour, I also believe it would be immoral for me to push my religiousd beliefs on others. It would also be immoral for me to hold it against someone if we have different beliefs. No one has to answer to me, and I don't have to answer to anyone but God. And that's only because I believe in him. People who think it's okay to beat their wives don't do it because they saw some obscure passage in the Old Testament (which I'm not sure even exists). If I recall correctly, I think the King of England was the one who came up with that rule, from which we get the saying "a rule of thumb". He's beating his wife because he sees her as inferior to him. If he reads the Bible correctly, it shouldn't give him that impression. The Bible says that men are supposed to love their wives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the guy is beating his wife, he obviously doens't love her. I'm not going to get into Islam. I know very little about it. Talk to Anna H, she knows more about Islam than I do.(reply to this comment)

From Nefarious Nosferatu & the Mystic Mefist Sunday, December 10, 2006, 19:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Mahatma fucking Samuel, Tell that to the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. Remind the Catholics and Muslims in Indonesia. Remind the Muslims in the Philippines. That's no reason to dislike someone? Great that you wanna be Samuel luther king and love all the world and shit but dude I take exception to any motherfucking religion that tells ragheads to kill me, because I ain't one of them. (reply to this comment)

From GetReal Saturday, December 09, 2006, 20:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel if u have a different opinoin ppl will dislike you just 4 that , if you add to it by putting your foot in your you are an easy target. my advice to you is don't let it get to you .There are also ppl that are asses just because , don't waist your time trying to figure it out , its not ur falt (reply to this comment)

From GetReal Saturday, December 09, 2006, 19:24 (Agree/Disagree?) you can tell him that that he is offensive and irritating but do you think you could say it it in a way that doesn't offend or irritate other ppl on this site. personaly I like Samuel because there is no one else like him on this site and I agree with most of what he says but maybe not the way he says it . don't be hater Lisa.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, December 10, 2006, 13:43 (Agree/Disagree?) WTF? Don't be a hater?? How does that make sense? Stop watching Dr.Phil. If I want to be a hater I will be a fucking hater, starting with you.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Sunday, December 10, 2006, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok feel better now , tks for hateing me. If I can think of some thing clever to say back I will . Smile it will make you feel better.lol(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 02:37 (Agree/Disagree?) "there is no one else like him on this site" THANK FUCK FOR THAT!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, December 10, 2006, 05:26 (Agree/Disagree?) and Thank heaven there's no one else like you on this site either. I don't think we could handle two Neez's.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, December 08, 2006, 21:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree. It's a moronic opinion, but it's an opinion. It doesn't advocate, solicit, or encourage any harmful or illegal action. It's in the same vein as "parents should be barred from teaching their children religion." or "Dan Brown is the messiah" type articles. Ignorant blithering. Why TP it for that? Since when is this a mini online democracy where the majority censors the opinions they dislike or disagree with? Unless it's brutally offensive, defamatory, inflammatory trolling, why can't we just accept it and dismiss it as a opinion not worth debating? I voted thumbs up, to show my support for freedom of speech and expression.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Saturday, December 09, 2006, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Oddman why do you dislike democracy ?(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Saturday, December 09, 2006, 14:06 (Agree/Disagree?) You must've misread Oddman's comment. Although I have no idea what his personal political preferences are, it's pretty clear that Oddman was only saying that minority opinions should be as protected as popular ones. Democracy is still capable of imposing on liberties. For example, if the majority of a nation believes women shouldn't have the right to vote, the standards of equality still demand that they should. What you've done here is put words in his mouth. Two can play at that game. GetReal, why do you dislike freedom?(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Saturday, December 09, 2006, 17:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I apologise, should have made my comment a lot clearer.I agree with Oddman that Thyatiras' article shouldn't be trailer parked , freedom of speach is an important part of this web site. I think we should be able to tolerate a few mindless articles to protect the priceless idea of freedom of speach . If you don't like it , don't read it don't comment on it , simple. I just think there is a better way to describe TPing an article then calling it a mini online democracy. perhaps online censorship or dictatorship? ( please don't be offended Rainchild) But thats just my opinion of course(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 09, 2006, 19:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Now if admin had suddenly removed or TP'd the article, then maybe the word "dictatorship" could be considered. We're talking about the TP system, where the users (masses) decide by vote. I'm sure it was built with good intent. But in reality, it takes 5 votes out of 3971 users. A gross minority. Then we get a few ignorant hypocritical persons on a campaign to ban ignorant posts. Sort of like a politician who was never really elected. This mob rule of movingon by the "majority" of the "proactive" regulars controlling what the "minority" of the "proactive" regulars and the huge mass of passive users may or may not read. It sound a lot like American democracy to me. Hence the choice of the term.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 06:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok so a "gross minority" of proactive users voting to TP an article "sounds a lot" like American democracy. Of course that makes perfect sense to you , just like "every country is a Democracy".you already know what I think so lets look at the facts. A democracy is the rule by all ppl equally, a couple ignorant ppl deciding they don't like an article and voting it out dosen't sound at all like a democracy, even an American one. Please explain how you justify bringing the word majority into your post.I luv the way can you bring up a random subject/word into a discussion and make it look perfectly legitimate,you are a good debater. Besides even if you are faking a demoracy you have to allow a vote both ways. Does the trailer park system allow that? Anna do I still have to wear your fucking sign? (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 09:08 (Agree/Disagree?) No, you're redeemed. But if you're going to pick a fight have the courtesy to end it properly, and not by running away. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 06:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes Getreal, it does sound like American democracy. A gross minority without public support,acts to limit the freedoms of the masses, by operating in ways that contradict the very principles on which this society stands. "A couple ignorant people deciding they don't like an article and voting it out" sounds exactly like a typical American scenario. If indeed, the definition of a democracy is "the rule by all ppl equally", then this certainly does not apply to the United States of America. As comrade Stalin said, "The people who count the votes decide everything" I don't think you have to wear Anna's fucking sign, but I dare say you almost make it look fashionable.(reply to this comment)

From pissed American Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 07:08 (Agree/Disagree?) It sounds like an American 'democracy' because America is not a democracy at all. It's a republic. A group of 'representatives' is what passes legislature, etc. Even the president of the US is a representative empowered as a result of the ellectoral college votes, which does not accurately portray the genuine voice of the people as a true democracy should. The popular (or numeric) vote winner has lost elections which would never happen if America were in fact, a democracy. Our republic is an imitation of the Roman charade, only with checks and balances to prevent an elected president from becoming a dictator. In reality, America is a failure as a 'democracy' and have no business trying to be the democratic model worldwide, nor do we have any business trying to introduce 'democracy' in nations where tribes and factions historically never get along, while never instituting a plan for legitimate democracy to ever exist. That being said, 5 people thinking an article or comment should go to the TP is a definate imitation of American democracy: make some noise and get your way by means of a guise.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Saturday, December 09, 2006, 19:56 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL, ok Oddman u have a perfect right to voice ur opinion as crasy as it is. GBY(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 10:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You know, I really fucking can't stand it when people do that. Why don't you just wear a big sign around the neck that says, "I can't defend my position?" Oddman was completely correct in his analysis. How can you argue against it? Oh wait...you can't because then you wouldn't be resorting to something so pathetic as dismissing his opinion as "crasy[sic]." Next time you don't have a comeback, just don't say anything or better yet, have some dignity and concede defeat. (reply to this comment)

From GetReal Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 06:13 (Agree/Disagree?) "Next time you don't have a comeback, just don't say anything or better yet, have some dignity and concede defeat." what the freek are you talking about ? Oddmans analysis isn't correct at all. I didn't give a lengthy responce cause I know that Oddman will respond . I just don't want to restart that debate. (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 09:03 (Agree/Disagree?) If you didn't want to restart that debate, why didn't you just say so? You made yourself look like a jackass for no reason. If you didn't want to get into it at the moment you could have waited until you had time to respond and I wouldn't have had to bully you into it. (reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 10, 2006, 02:35 (Agree/Disagree?) GBY!?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, December 09, 2006, 20:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks getreal, and GBAKYTAYCMTJASHGSTTPOTK, Amen?(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Saturday, December 09, 2006, 18:55 (Agree/Disagree?) No offence taken...I just wasn't thinking about the issues surrounding TPing something I don't like. I hate censorship too...I was just thinking of it as the ultimate way of saying I disagree.(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Saturday, December 09, 2006, 14:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I think he's also referring to an older debate between him and Oddman regarding democracy. Oddman argued against it, or that it wasn't necessarily the best system. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 21:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, good point Oddie. I was just in a mood. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 15:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry I was unclear, Shaka. I was agreeing and adding to what you were saying.(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Friday, December 08, 2006, 14:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Free thinking is a pretty subjective term, don't you think? The man took a couple bible verses and interpreted them to be a condemnation against the Family. That sounds pretty free to me. He's totally cuckoo but I'm sure he came to that opinion of his own accord. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I'm feeling a little over the top this morning. But...a couple of Bible verses? As Shaka said, "Read the last paragraph again" It's not exactly the beatitudes. And it's not 'free thinking' if he went from 10 - 20 years of believing in Bible prophecy according to the cult, and now he believes in Bible prophecy according to himself. He's still a brainwashed idiot. He's still never thought outside that rubbish (as far as I can see from what is presented here)(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Friday, December 08, 2006, 17:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally understand, I've been there. I agree with you, but not in principle. Is it really impossible that he could have come to this conclusion on his own without being brainwashed? Was David Berg brainwashed? He believed it and no one(as far as I know) influenced him. I've known people who were totally cool and secular and then one day they up and decide to become a Mormon. I don't believe they were brainwashed into it, I think they came to that decision because they really believed it was for them. Open-mindedness goes both ways. I find a lot of the people who do claim to be open-minded are only so to a certain amount of input that fits into their definition of acceptable. Not all free-thinking people come to the same conclusions. Do you ever think of the ways you may have been brainwashed outside of the family? I think everyone in the world undergoes a brainwashing of sort. Parents obviously play a large part in it, as do school and peers. (reply to this comment)

from Damned if I care Thursday, December 07, 2006 - 02:11 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.youaredamned.com/ (reply to this comment)

from Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 10:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, after reading everything and having time to think about it all, I’ve come to a conclusion. First of all, I still believe that the person who wrote this had good intentions. Their intention was to draw people away from The Family, by using The Family’s sacred scriptures (The Bible) against them. That said, I think this is a misinterpretation. For all I know, this could be referring to something that happened at the church in Thyatira years ago. While it might be okay to compare this with Karen Zerby, it would be incorrect in my opinion to claim that this is a prophecy about her. Any likeness between this scripture and Karen Zerby is pure coincidence. And as far as God “killing her children with death”, I don’t buy it. I just don’t think it relates to Ricky. The letter to the church of Sardis is of course different. It has no relation to the other letter. To be honest, I think this person is stretching things a bit too thin. Beanermeaner, I don’t think this is taking God’s word in vain. I do think it was unwise, but I see good intentions in it. I think this person was trying to do a good thing, and went about it the wrong way. Just like I said so many churches seem to think they have a “monopoly” on morals, some people seem to think they have a “monopoly” when it comes to interpreting The Bible. Conan has a point also. There are definitely people that would read too much into this passage of scripture and assume that it must be Karen Zerby, simply because her son died. “An apostate”, I honestly think that we both overreacted here. It’s not always easy to understand what you’re trying to say, I try my best to figure it out. I’m wrong sometimes. Yes, I believe The Bible is non-fiction, as do a majority of Christians. I was not trying to defend the article; I was only saying that I thought the person who posted it had good intentions. When I first saw the article, I actually thought it was sloppily written and I felt the poster was suggesting that God had killed Zerby’s son, and had prophesied about it. I didn’t feel this was right, but I knew there were other interpretations. I figured it was just me. I honestly don’t think Andy H was pandering to me. You did say that you think I’m a half-wit Christian idiot. When you use a term like that, what it says to me is that you think I’m an idiot because I’m a Christian. It’s like saying “Can’t you see the STOP sign, you moron?” You’re suggesting that the person is a moron specifically because they couldn’t see or didn’t stop at the STOP sing. Maybe I overreacted, but you also did the same to me. You said that I think you’re a caustic, atheistic asshole. I never said that. To be quite honest with you, I don’t think that. I’m simple and very naïve when it comes to your way of thinking. That can be expected, since I’m not an atheist. I will check what I wrote, but I do not remember ever saying that the poster was right in suggesting that Ricky’s death was prophesied about. I try not to get too much into prophecy, because I know how easily it can be misinterpreted. I guess I just figure there’s no advantage in trying to figure out in advance what’s going to happen. Unless we’re discussing the stock market : o ) Maybe I overreacted when I said “You think I’m naïve because I’m a Christian”. But that was only after you said, “It’s your blind acceptance of the Bible and Christianity that led you to this predilection with which I found such immense culpability.” Can you really blame me for drawing that conclusion from what you said? I’m sure you realize that part of being a Christian is accepting the Bible and Christianity (though not blindly). If one follows The Bible and Christianity blindly, then there is room for bad leaders to manipulate people. And there will always be those who see that opportunity. Yes, I read everything that you wrote. I’m afraid with all the overreaction that went on in this thread; there is little hope for a logical discussion. Maybe we can try again somewhere else. I try to comprehend what you write, but sometimes it’s rather difficult. You think I was trying to find merit with the article. Well, that’s just me. I try to find the merit in everything. There is an old adage that goes “Even a broken clock is right twice a day”. I felt before that people wanted me to subscribe to “group think” before they would accept me. That was before I made friends on here. How do you know that I won’t change? Of course if I do, it will be because I’ve been enlightened and seen something I didn’t see before. It won’t be because I just wanted your approval. I’m a free and independent thinker. When I was in Rome, I bought a gold medallion charm with Saint Francis of Assisi on it, because you know how Family always loved him. After I left the cult, I realized that I didn’t want to wear that around my neck. For one thing, it looked Catholic. So I went to a pawn shop and bought an eagle to put on my chain instead. When I look at that eagle, I’m reminded that: I’m an American I’m Patriotic I have a free mind, and I’m an independent thinker. I don’t have to subscribe to strange doctrines any more. I can think for myself, and knowing that is true bliss. Let’s start from scratch. If I’ve offended you at all, I’m sorry. And anything you have said to offend me is erased. If we’re going to have a civil discussion, we’re going to have to forget about all the mean things we said to each other. Have a great day, everyone. I have to go to work soon. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 23:11 (Agree/Disagree?) That comment was more of a playful sarcastic jab. Didn't expect you to take it quite so literally.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 23:13 (Agree/Disagree?) That was refering to the comment by BeanerMeaner. Forgot to change my name above. I'm such a dumdum when PUI.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, you have got to stop overexplaining yourself. If someone insults you or ridicules something you wrote, re-explaining yourself all over again doesn't change a thing. They got it the first time, that's why they insulted you. A lengthy background on why you think how you do and why you wrote it down will only invite more insults. Just a thought.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 13:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the more poignant issue is that those insulting or ridiculing you are less interested in a considered dialogue on the issues, and more interested in taking cheap pot-shots and flaming. People who resort to throwing around terms such as "moron", "idiot", "dimwit" or the like are neither clever nor openminded. And are in most cases using ad hominem attacks to compensate for a lack of substance to back up their position (or sufficient intelligence to source such substance).(reply to this comment)

From conan Saturday, December 09, 2006, 17:47 (Agree/Disagree?) NeO, I think that if you were to read between the lines of some of those vitriolic tirades, you'd see that ad hominem is the root intention because the poster seems to see futility in appealing to the logic/intellect of certain people on this site. I don't think that cruel banality was the ulterior motive, but more to try and use 'shock treatment'. Not that their methods are right, but just trying to keep it 'openminded' up in here!(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 23:08 (Agree/Disagree?) "The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." Ayn Rand.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, December 07, 2006, 14:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for that, Oddman.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) What do you suggest the poor boy does? He's trying to be true to who he is at this point, (a Christian) and stand up to a lengthy character attack, while at the same time his friendships with everyone on this site are very important to him. It's not a position anyone could handle well, and isn't it easy to pick on the underdog? I know he got himself into it, but can we at least keep the gloves on? (that bit's not aimed at you Shaka, it's a general request to other heartless posters on this thread) As they say, "pick on someone your own size" Sam, if I were you, I'd just try and get this whole thread trailer-parked. I already nominated it the second it appeared. Anyone else with me?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 20:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I just want to say Thanks to you and Ne Oubile for defending me. I know it takes guts, especially when everyone else on the thread seems to be against me on the issue. Good night.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 16:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I know, I just hate to see him inviting more attacks on himself by saying the same things over and over. Especially since he takes things way too personally for his own good. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, December 07, 2006, 02:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Right, so let's blame the victim for the abusive treatment they receive? I would have expected better on this site, of all places!(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Thursday, December 07, 2006, 03:24 (Agree/Disagree?) The dude's not being abused, he's being laughed at for saying things that are sometimes a little wacko. I would just like to see him be able to defend himself a little better. It's not just here that a cynical side wouldn't hurt, it's the rest of his life too. The guy's gonna get reamed when he gets out on his own!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, December 07, 2006, 04:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm the last person to jump on the 'victimisation bandwagon', but I think you will find that by most definitions dishing out personal insults is a form of verbal abuse. In debating 'protocol', they would be considered ad hominem attacks. In either case, however, the inappropriate behaviour is on the part of the one making - rather than receiving - the insults. If someone's behaviour is inappropriate, or their views ill-informed, then by all means call them on it. But churning out insults is not the way to do so, and is in itself inappropriate.(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Thursday, December 07, 2006, 04:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Neoubs I was looking for that ridiculously long debate we had that did my head in...the one about chivalry. Hard to believe I actually cared that much. Do you remember which article it was under? I can't.(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, December 07, 2006, 04:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Here you go: http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=8&Cat=28&ID=3843 Enjoy ;-) (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Thursday, December 07, 2006, 04:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Knew I could count on you Vix :) (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Thursday, December 07, 2006, 05:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn I just spent half an hour reading that thing. Why do we let them make us care so much, Vix? Never again. Honestly. An idle mind is far sweeter than a fanatical one. Why did Daddy tell me it was the devil's workshop? I resolve to stop caring so damn much...people can have any attitude they like. Not like it's going to affect me anyway. Serenity now!(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, December 07, 2006, 05:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh. I thought you might come back with something like that after reading the thread. I know what you mean. TBH I didn't care that much. I was just spoiling for a fight. I am perfectly capable of understanding that while one might be able to afford a more militant stance within the realms of ideology only, there's no question that in real life compromises have to be made in order for things to work smoothly. There's almost always a great chasm between theory and reality, and one of the problems with contentious subjects like feminism is that while one can analyse and theorise to one's heart's content and read all sorts of underlying meanings into rather mundane actions (and one's points might well be very valid indeed), there will always be a degree of seperation from the day to day experiences of real life. Generally things will go on being the way they are and there is little to be done about it. It's just the way the world is. What I find hard is determining where to give in and where to stand my ground. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, December 07, 2006, 06:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Well 'standing your ground' was exactly what you were advocating at the time ;) Sorry, couldn't resist that one! What I find is that exactly as you have described, the 'real' world is all about making compromises from what could be considered your 'pure' ideology in order to operate within a society. What this means when considering or debating ideology is that while we can point to definite problems in the reality, the ideological cause of that problem is much harder to define. In this case, I think we all agree that a society where people were kind and courteous to each other is the end goal, however we took opposing sides when proposing a solution.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, December 07, 2006, 18:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Methinks I would find a "society where people were kind and courteous to each other" reminiscent of TF's plastic love, and thus much too nausea inducing a world to live in. I would much rather have the guy in the beamer honk and give me the finger as I cut in front, not yell "GBY, drive safe". I don't know, maybe I can't fathom love without a pinch of hate. When I picked up the pieces and reassembled myself, I must have misplaced a few nuts and bolts here and there. Still broken, "more broken than Owen Wilson's nose" as Borats and Bereta would say.(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, December 07, 2006, 06:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure, if you take that discussion at face value then yes, that is what I was advocating. But in the comment above I wasn't so much referring to specific instances (It's fairly easy to determine which is the appropriate action within the specifics of a given context, don't you think?), but more of a philosophical question of where the boundary should lie between holding oneself responsible to do something about things that one perceives as less than satisfactory vs. accepting that perhaps the reality is not ideal but is probably just about as close to it as one can hope for. Incidentally, I accepted an offer of a seat on the train the other day (OMG, yay me!!!) but honestly, I felt so strange taking advantage of an offer that might well have been made out of a sense of obligation, I don't think I'll be doing it on a regular basis. (reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, December 07, 2006, 06:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmm, seems I'm kinda slow today - was that a joke you opened with? Maybe it's time for a cuppa. Eh, in any case, I agree with what you said. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, December 07, 2006, 04:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Rain, I don't think you nominated the whole article. When I looked up it said This article has not yet been rated. Maybe you nominated it without a rating? Either way, I nominated it.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, December 07, 2006, 03:06 (Agree/Disagree?) My take on this would depend largely on the definition of abuse, whether Samuel is being abused here, and whether the victim has done anything to bring on said abuse, or has he done anything to reduce exposure to such risks. I don't think ridicule always equals abuse. Also I think a victim can at times, be responsible for tempting other people to abuse them. I am in no way pardoning the abusers. They still have their own conscience, discretion, and moral judgement. They can just as easily choose not to cause harm to others. But if someone posts a really lame and naive comment, then get's comment-raped for it, they'd better be packing a piece when they comment next. If they come back again with a ditsy itsy bitsy miniskirt of a lame & naive comment, they must be asking for it. It's like you wouldn't walk a back alley in a redlight district alone, at 2:00 hours, in a G-string bikini. You wouldn't plop your wallet and cell phone on a park bench while you take a nap. You're still a victim alright, but you were asking for it.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 19:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Shaka, you give good advice (most of the time). I'll have to remember that.(reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 12:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Why TP it rain? It's good entertainment ;-P(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 12:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I said 'If I were (Sam)', not 'if I were *you*'.(reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, that's clearly his MO tho. No getting around it. It is good for a laugh I have to say. But that could just be my evil alter-ego! :-D(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 19:59 (Agree/Disagree?) What does MO stand for, Conan?(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Thursday, December 07, 2006, 00:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Case in point, Conan.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 23:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Modus Operandi(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 11:27 (Agree/Disagree?) But after having time to think about it, I feel differently. You can read both that and my earlier comments if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. Especially if you're busy. (reply to this comment)

from Shaka Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 13:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Seriously, if this is F again, FUCK OFF!!! You're a pathetic excuse for a human being and you are wasting my oxygen. You're a child abuser and a sick fucking nutjob and you should be put down with a 9mm migrane headache that I wish I could be there to administer. Die. Please, asshole. And if this isn't F but some other loony, get help you freak! (reply to this comment)

from Shaka Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 12:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Fucking freak. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 14:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, Shaka. For the sake of arguement, let's assume that the Bible is a forgery and innaccurate. The fact remains that The Family believes The Bible, or at least claims to. I don't get why this guy posted this on here, but it could definitely be a help to someone who is still in The Family. It could help them to understand why Karen Zerby is not the Prophetess that she claims to be. What this guy did was condemn Queen Maria, if you will, using the Bible, which The Family considers sacred. Again, I don't know why he posted it on here, but it does seem like he had good intentions. And I don't think it's F. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 08:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, I'm not even going to begin to tell you how much was wrong and just dumb about that comment. I don't have nearly enough time and if I did I'd just feel like ripping my hair out. (reply to this comment)

From Hmmmm Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 08:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry Shaka, I gotta agree with Sam on this one. The family does believe the bible to be true. They base their whole religion on interpretation very similar to what the original poster just posted. So to be able to read a passage in the bible and interpret it so easily is really something that could sway some of their "weaker" members. Also, that is in no way F that posted that as he is pro family. This posting is Anti family and Anti Zerb. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 08:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Finally someone who understand my point. Thanks. You see, The Family put so much emphasis on interpretation. If someone in The Family reads this, that could come back to haunt them.(reply to this comment)

From beanermeaner Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 05:28 (Agree/Disagree?) So, as a conservative pious religious God fearing "true" Christian, you don't think this falls under the "taking God's word in vain" category? Seriously, if the bible book was the word of god at all, the last thing god would need to put in there would be a divine prophesy about Zerby. The bible was written by the church so it could be used to condemn whomever they pleased. The same scriptures could just as easily be interpreted to mean Hillary, Bush, Michael Moore, Britney Spears, or Jenna Jameson is the antichrist. Not a reliable book. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 12:43 (Agree/Disagree?) VERY well said (reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 06:00 (Agree/Disagree?) And you have to love the ambiguity; "He's" going to "kill her chidren with death". That's convenient! That way, whoever, whenever, however they die, the church can attribute it to devine intervention. "Look, look! The Bible said He'd kill the Iraqi's with death. George Bush really is fulfilling God's wishes!"(reply to this comment)

From conan Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 05:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Here, here!(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 03:13 (Agree/Disagree?) So you're saying that you would agree wih this cunt-muscle for saying that Ricky's death (and the other ex-member suicides) is indeed the "Lord's" will and prophesied about by him to be fulfilled according to "His" infinite wisdom and will? Are you out of your fucking mind?? It's one thing that you personally are deluded enough to believe that the Bible is non-fiction that has actual "prophecies" in it, but to defend this ludacris, asinine, daft, idiotic, moronic, retarded, incompetent bull-crap as having "good intentions" then I strongly suggest that you go, take your Bible to the bathroom, masturbate to Jesus with a towel around your neck, and choke the derangement out of yourself. I don't care how you justify this in your twisted little head as to thinking that it's an anti-Zerby interpretation and therefore kosher on here you fuck-wad, but I strongly suggest that you rethink your mother fucking moral principles (not to mention your religion that would actually consider the legitimacy of Ricky's tragic end to be the fulfillment of your masturbation-loving-savior's words). "Good intentions"? Are you fucking serious?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 04:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I actually didn't agree with that part of the article. I still thought the article as a whole was a good way to maybe open up someone's mind to the fact that Karen Zerby is a false prophet. I actually have a problem with his interpretation. The scripture says "Now you are dead". It doesn't say anything about your kid or your followers kids dying. The author took a lot of liscence there, which I don't approve of. I didn't justify him posting it on here. I don't even know why he posted it on here. I have a right to believe in whatever religion I want. If you have something against me being a Christian and reading the Bible, then maybe you have a few problems of your own. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Friday, December 08, 2006, 15:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, Rev 2:23: "And I will kill her children with death" exactly as the poster quoted it. I have actually heard this interpretation before from an ex-member FGA I know. I just think that the poster should have gone to one of the ex-FGA sites. They love this sort of thing. It helps them feel that maybe they haven't wasted their entire lives believing in the book of babble.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, December 08, 2006, 21:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, but then he went into Revelation 3.(reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 03:37 (Agree/Disagree?) What a dimwitted apostate - you go off on a rant which has nothing to do with what the original comment said!(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 04:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Nothing to do with the original comment? Fucking idiot, anonymous poster! If you had any actual reading comprehension skills (which you clearly don't) then you would see the logical path my comments took in response to samuel's comment in response to the comment above it by lisa (i think it was) in response to the original fucking post from which this thread and your idiot remark have all sprung. If this is too much for you to grasp or wrap your tiny brain around...i'll be more than happy to give you the slow, methodical, step-by-step break down. Until then...enjoy your stupidity.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I am a fucking idiot, anonymous poster! My comments took no logical path, this is too much for me to grasp or wrap my tiny brain around. I enjoy my stupidity.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 07:23 (Agree/Disagree?) steal my alias again why don't you shit head?(reply to this comment)

From It's too late Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 10:16 (Agree/Disagree?) We already know you're just another troll hiding behind your anonymity while throwing around random insults.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 07:22 (Agree/Disagree?) funny. asshole!(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I was wrong...it was shaka. My bad, shaka(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 18:17 (Agree/Disagree?) If your suggesting that this wacko prophecy is a good thing as long as it gets him out of/away from a TF mindset, then I'd agree, as long as he drops his new psychosis, forthwith. (reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 02:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't fucking pander to him Andy. You're better than that.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 05:02 (Agree/Disagree?) No, an apostate. The fact that you insult just about everyone that you don't understand only reveals your own stupidity.(reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 05:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, I insult those I chose to insult, not those I don't understand. I could care less if I don't understand you, and apparently you'll never understand me. Let's leave it at: I think you're a half-wit, Christian idiot, and you think I'm a caustic, atheistic asshole! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 06:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Why would I feel that way about you? You also have a right to your religion, you know. It works both ways. I have nothing against you being an atheist. I just wish you'd be a bit more tolerant. You're not insulting me because i did something (at least I don't think so). You're insulting me because I'm a Christian. You said “…I strongly suggest that you go, take your Bible to the bathroom, masturbate to Jesus with a towel around your neck, and choke the derangement out of yourself.” Now, you’ve been out of The Family long enough to know that “masturbate to Jesus” is a doctrine native to The Family, that you don’t find in most other places. Doesn’t that mean you’re accusing me of being a Family member? Just because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean I’m a Family member, you know. It doesn’t mean I’m insane either, as you suggested in using the word “derangement”. Being a Christian doesn’t make me insane any more than being an atheist makes you insane. I never defended him posting it on here. In fact, I said I couldn’t understand why he did. All I said was that it seemed like he had good intentions (for writing it). And you know what? It might just work on some of the people who are in The Family. By the way, my church, and most others, doesn’t get into interpreting Revelations because it’s so easy to misinterpret. Today, this guy sees those verses and thinks of Zerby. 10 years from now, he may see those verses and think of Hillary Clinton. 20 years from now…you get the picture. (reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 07:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Here we go, huh? I'm not insulting you because of your religion (well, not for that reason alone) but because I think you're a bit simple and very, very naive. The simple fact that you misconstrued my quote into an accusation of you being a member of TF, shows to me how naïve you are. I know you're not a member, you've mentioned that on here more than once. It's intent was simply to try and show a similarity in stupidity between the act of masturbating to a(n) (imaginary) deity and claiming that this same deity had taken the time and the liberty of prophesying centuries and millennia ago about the death of your “false prophetess’” child. By using the word “derangement”, I was implying that by your actually believing that this could be a good thing in some roundabout, inadvertent fashion while still having the whole ‘prophecy’ thing going made you fundamentally insane. I realize that you probably didn’t believe in the idiotic line of ‘prophecy’ that the original article on here was discussing, but your lack of defining what was wrong with it and your over simplistic ‘aw-shucks’ attitude about it being “a help” or having “good intentions” was what led me to shred your post and make an issue out of it. It’s your blind acceptance of the Bible and Christianity that led you to this predilection with which I found such immense culpability. I could care less that you’re a Christian, Samuel. You’re religion, while incomprehensible to me as a lifestyle after being raised in TF, is a choice you made and continue to make on a daily basis. Your choice to believe in a deity who has no problem killing hundreds and thousands of people yearly with natural disaster after natural disaster and who has never done one solid thing for any one person or group of people that claim to be his ‘chosen’ ones that can be proved with tangible evidence in the history of existence is a mysterious one, but it is still your choice and I have some respect for that. I fear that the reasons for which I berate you and question your sanity lies beyond my feeble efforts of description that I would trust you to comprehend for the same deduction that I have made regarding your sanity originally. There’s no getting past this and there never will be for me, I suspect. You’re going to continue to believe in your faith no matter how much I try and break it down logically to you, or how much I try and insult your intelligence for believing in it in the first place. Savvy? However, when you are dense enough to try and justify a truly astoundingly moronic article, I can’t bear to sit idly by. There is something so inane, so unintelligent even, about your approach that I feel obligated to step in and say something. It is because this has been done patiently and logically by so many, so valiantly, so often, with no success, that I find it easiest to lash out in vulgarities to which I hope I can shock you into paying attention to the issue at hand and at least attempting to pry you into some sort of rational reckoning as to the delusion of your cognition. Clearly this too has failed. You yourself have made mention of the unreliability of the book upon which your religion is founded, The Bible. The fact that you see the irrelevance to some degree, yet are willing to defend this same book and religion is so counterintuitive that I would scream for the excruciating agony you are unwittingly putting my acumen through if there were some relief provided me by screaming. There is however, none! Do you see my conundrum? If so, then let’s leave it at: I think you're a half-wit, Christian idiot, and you think I'm a caustic, atheistic asshole! If not, hey! Cursing at you is pretty fucking fun too! Say some dumb shit and I’ll curse the fuck out of it for your retarded Christian ass! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 08:04 (Agree/Disagree?) You think I'm naive because I'm a Christian. I never said that those verses were a prophecy. I simply said that the author was using them as a condemnation of Zerby. I don't agree with the way he interpreting all of it, but I understand that scripture can be interpreted different ways. Please remember that just because I'm a Christian that does not make me "deranged". I did define waht was wrong with the article. Maybe I didn't define it the way you would, but that doesn't make me "deranged". I see that you feel I'm culpable because I'm a Christian and I believe the Bible. That would make you just as culpable, because you're an atheist. Neither of us is going to win that arguement. You don't get it. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm not intelligent. There are plenty of intelligent Christians in the world. And please remember that I did not try to justify the article. For the last time, I don't know why he posted it here. It reminded me of Banshee's article where they also used the Bible against The Family. I don't feel that my approach is inane or unintelligent. Did it ever occur to you that we don't even know if this person is a Christian or not? Vulgarities don't shock me. I hear them all the time at work. But they do say a lot about you. Bottom line, I'm going to continue to be myself. I'm not going to change for someone else. I'm not going to subscribe to group think. I'm not going to change my views to win the approval of the group, or your approval. If someone can prove to me why the Bible is wrong about something, I'm willing to listen. I'm not talking about someone putting a post on here mocking it, or making sweeping statements about it. And I will not have people on here believing that I think you're an asshole, so please quit saying that. (reply to this comment)

From an apostate Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 08:35 (Agree/Disagree?) “You think I’m naïve because I’m a Christian.” That’s a statement, not a question. That is your statement. That is you, putting words into my mouth. That is you assuming that you know me. That is you assuming that you know why I say what I say when I say it and for what reasons. You are saying that you know me. FUCK YOU! If you had placed a question mark at the end of that sentence, you’d be asking me for clarification, not stating something to be a fact when you have absolutely no cause for such statement. I never made the connection of naïveté and religion with you. You made that connection for me in one simple, assumed sentence. Did you read what I wrote or did you just see that it was from me and assume that you knew what I was going to say so write some sort of standard rebuttal with all your usual panache? You’re dumber than I was trying to give you credit for. Yes! That is meant as an insult. Before I was sort of kidding and hoping to maybe start a logical discussion but now I just think that you’re a dumb mother-fucking idiot. You read something, and make absolutely no attempt to actually comprehend what’s written. You clearly don’t get it my man. I never linked my accusation of your lack of intelligence to your Christianity. In fact, I made if very clear that I was not attacking your religion. I’m merely confused by your dogmatism, which is in such contrast with the otherwise hallmark showings of intelligence you occasionally offer us a glance of. Dude, when the fuck did I ever ask you why our mutual idiot posted those verses here. You incessantly revert back to that as your fundamental argument for your justification here. I don’t give a flying fuck why that inflamed choad (that’s for you rain ;-D) posted his rhetorical diarrhea on here for us all to hate on, but he did. What the fuck does that have to do with you? I don’t know why you insist on trying to find merit with the article. I DON’T KNOW WHY HE POSTED IT EITHER! Maybe he had a rectal itch. Who the fuck knows, and who the fuck cares? This is what I’m talking about when I say that I question your intellect. I’ve never asked you to subscribe to ‘group think’ and I don’t know why you’d even insinuate that. All I said in my last post was how you wouldn’t change and neither would I. You don’t understand me and you never will. I’m sure you’ll reply to this with some ridiculous drivel about how you don’t know why he posted here and how your not stupid because you’re Christian (I know, it must be other reasons) but frankly, I don’t give a shit on this thread anymore. I’m sure you’ll say something to get under my skin in the next few days on here but I don’t care about this one anymore. Anyways, I’ve said my peace. (reply to this comment)

from AndyH Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 12:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I can hear the cuckoo singing in the cuckoo-berry tree! (reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 09:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Seriously??!!! This is goat rubbish! Who could think that an ex-fam would still be into the theological practice of taking mysterious writings from an ancient construed text and try to make some parody to modern day subjects. Get the Cult out of your head honey....Arggghhh rrrrr (reply to this comment)

from Snufkin Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 01:05 (Agree/Disagree?) what the fuck? seriously is this real?? I thought it was a joke at first (in poor taste and not very funny i admit) but honestly... Whoever this is sounds even more messed up that my cultie family. (reply to this comment)

from steam Monday, December 04, 2006 - 21:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Insanity. "How could you be napoleon when I am?" Some people. But it sickened me to read he thought God had killed Ricky to fulfil some prophecy (hallucination of an old isolated guy on some island, probably had a native plant with special "properties"). If I actually thought that were true, it would be almost worse than the clown The Family claims to worship. (reply to this comment)

from Important question first! Monday, December 04, 2006 - 21:12 (Agree/Disagree?) "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" -Homer Simpson (reply to this comment)

from placebo Monday, December 04, 2006 - 16:02 (Agree/Disagree?) in the words of a random South Park Character: " Who? What? Oh! I don't like you! What? (reply to this comment)

from Nick Monday, December 04, 2006 - 15:57 (Agree/Disagree?) It would be interesting to see that again but with the literal text from the KJV (As we all know that the cult will only read that.) That way you could send it to them and see their response. (reply to this comment)

From Kennyskiller Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 03:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Their response would probably be a whole new "son-of-Sam" prophecy type stuff! How there will be false prophets, etc. Speaking of false prophets...why is this person posting all of this stuff on here? Wouldn't a site like weirdoworld.com be better?(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 03:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Son Of Sam, the serial killer? Yeah the author of this article sounds about that nuts. Sort of like the flip side of F.(reply to this comment)

From Kennyskiller Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 04:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I was actually referring to the "Son of Sam" prophecies that Berg "received" sometime in the 80s as far as I remember. Bashing some loony Family member for receiving false (and extremely weird) prophecies...and mentioning F, from what I know, the loon was his Dad. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 12:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Aaahh...When I watched the movie about Son Of Sam, I was sure there was some reference to my (cult word-time)past in the title, but I couldn't place it. But the false prophecy thing makes sense as the serial killer believed the neighbourhood dogs were instructing him to commit the murders.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, December 05, 2006, 18:58 (Agree/Disagree?) That's pretty bad. David Berg at least only believed that the neighbourhood dogs were instructing him to feed them.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Wednesday, December 06, 2006, 08:12 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL, I forgot about that one! Berg thought he was such a genius and prophet for being able to realize that if he fed the barking dog they would stop barking. It doesn't take a genius to know that if you forget to feed your dogs they will bark. Feed them and they will stop. Just like the story with Techi in LWG, where the devil made the mosquito disappear. The old drunk fucking missed the little bug and he flew away. Simple as that... Jezuz, how do his followers still believe that crap! (reply to this comment)

From live_fast-die_young Thursday, December 07, 2006, 04:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Shiat! The disappearing act of the satanic mosquitos! You know how long that thought continued to pop into my head after I could credibly dismiss it? Too funny! In the Philippines I finally encountered mosquitos who seemed less influenced by ze devil as they kinda stuck around after you tried to smack them.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, December 08, 2006, 21:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh Baalzebub, the christian warriors have slain two of ours. Should I go to the garbage pile and send in some more? Or sumfin like that.(reply to this comment)

From i tried to forget.... Sunday, December 10, 2006, 17:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Or how about seeing dear old Al capones floating head while taking a shit! Can you say..."psycho!!!!!!!!??????????"(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, December 10, 2006, 19:19 (Agree/Disagree?) While you light up a premium cuban torpedo "just to cover the smell". Riiight....(reply to this comment)

from GetReal Monday, December 04, 2006 - 15:55 (Agree/Disagree?) BORING !!! (reply to this comment)

from GetReal Monday, December 04, 2006 - 15:54 (Agree/Disagree?) BORING !!! (reply to this comment)