Activism Change » Feminist

Family Support

admin — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I have a question for everyone. I got married about a year and a half ago. My then fiancee made me think that he would be supportive of my panics and really put up a good front. Now, he completely refuses to even acknowledge it and has accused me of "using it to get out of doing things I don’t want to do". I am SOOOOOOOOOOO angry with him and feel as though he put up a front before we got married to make me think he was going to be supportive but he’s not!!! I dont ask him to understand it because you cant understand it unless you’ve been there but I told him understanding it and being just a LITTLE sympathetic or compassionate to it is TOTALLY different. I appreciate any advice. Of course this is not the only area of my marriage that is not working, most all areas are NOT working so on top of everything else, we have this issue. Thanks, Kellie — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

I appreciate any advice. Of course this is not the only area of my marriage that is not working, most all areas are NOT working so on top of everything else, we have this issue.

You’ve answered your own questions. The marriage *itself* is a flop, hence the facade of your husband’s caring which easily dispels. This scenario is different from the so-called caregiver scenario, where an exhausted helper may becomes angry at times at a terminal patient (or just a person with a chronic illness) out of stress. — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a question for everyone. I got married about a year and a half ago. My then fiancee made me think that he would be supportive of my panics and really put up a good front. Now, he completely refuses to even acknowledge it and has accused me of "using it to get out of doing things I don’t want to do". I am SOOOOOOOOOOO angry with him and feel as though he put up a front before we got married to make me think he was going to be supportive but he’s not!!! I dont ask him to understand it because you cant understand it unless you’ve been there but I told him understanding it and being just a LITTLE sympathetic or compassionate to it is TOTALLY different. I appreciate any advice. Of course this is not the only area of my marriage that is not working, most all areas are NOT working so on top of everything else, we have this issue. Thanks, Kellie

I can only tell you my experience. Before we were married, he said he admired the fact that I was a feminist and had strong political views. He also said he agreed with me that we should wait 5 years before deciding to have kids. Didn’t even take him a month to go back on both statements, and not long after I discovered he was an alcoholic, and was sexually dysfunctional, into the bargain. I bribed him to go to couples counseling with me, and during the one session he deigned to attend he sat there and smiled and said "I don’t understand why we’re here. There is nothing wrong in our marriage." Then he would go 3 days sometimes without speaking a word to me. He stole money from my purse to go to strip clubs when we couldn’t afford decent groceries, and blamed my weight for his lack of sexual interest in me. I got the hell outta there. Never looked back, never regretted it. If you can fix it, great. If you can’t, you can’t. Figure that one out first, and the rest of your decisions will follow. Good luck, Deirdre — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Hi, Kellie, Is marriage counseling out of the question? It might be an avenue to pursue if your hubby would attend. smiles, Elise

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I have a question for everyone. I got married about a year and a half ago. My then fiancee made me think that he would be supportive of my panics and really put up a good front. Now, he completely refuses to even acknowledge it and has accused me of "using it to get out of doing things I don’t want to do". I am SOOOOOOOOOOO angry with him and feel as though he put up a front before we got married to make me think he was going to be supportive but he’s not!!! I dont ask him to understand it because you cant understand it unless you’ve been there but I told him understanding it and being just a LITTLE sympathetic or compassionate to it is TOTALLY different. I appreciate any advice. Of course this is not the only area of my marriage that is not working, most all areas are NOT working so on top of everything else, we have this issue. Thanks, Kellie — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

– The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a question for everyone. I got married about a year and a half ago. My then fiancee made me think that he would be supportive of my panics and really put up a good front. Now, he completely refuses to even acknowledge it and has accused me of "using it to get out of doing things I don’t want to do". I am SOOOOOOOOOOO angry with him and feel as though he put up a front before we got married to make me think he was going to be supportive but he’s not!!! I dont ask him to understand it because you cant understand it unless you’ve been there but I told him understanding it and being just a LITTLE sympathetic or compassionate to it is TOTALLY different. I appreciate any advice. Of course this is not the only area of my marriage that is not working, most all areas are NOT working so on top of everything else, we have this issue. Thanks, Kellie

Oh, honey, I just don’t think it’s going to work out. My husband has issues with my health, but not only do I have anxiety and agoraphobia, but we’re dealing with cancer; we’ve got major problems. My husband is doing the best he can and we’ve only been married 2 years. He cries, he holds me, he expresses his feelings and we talk. Do you two ever talk? Are you good friends? To me, a solid marriage is based on friendship. If a person can’t stick by their best friend in a time of need, then why get married? You need to ask your husband questions like this and reassess your relationship. To me, he just doesn’t sound supportive enough. I wish you all the best, sweetie. kili — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Kellie, I just recently put my foot down in my family about the fact I will no longer accept abuse of any kind, verbal or otherwise – anyone who tries to discount you or try to lay some stupid blame/guilt trip on you over an ILLNESS.. would get a dose of reality. Don’t you ever be fooled. that is a problem HE has, it ain’t you. Remember that if you remember nothing else. I’d tell the hubby to change it, it’s unacceptable, completely. He has that option or he can go.. Kellie, take it from one who really, really knows.. this sort of psychological abuse can damage you for years, decades… I’m sure your case doesn’t come close to what I’ve been through in my life, but I recognize that attitude. You stand up for yourself, call it like you see it. Most decent people will be shamed if you approach it from the standpoint of the truth, but I’d be completely adamant about it, and mean it.. treat you like a human being or GO.. and damned if I’d even care if he chose to. You don’t need that. I have hope for the guy, really. He acted okay before the marriage. Maybe he’s just assumed he’s got you in a state of dependence on him because you are married and he can do what he wants now. I’d let him know otherwise.. You have NOOOOOOOOOO idea what this sort attitude from others did to me. I bought into it. If you hear it enough, you may start to believe it yourself… you see it for what it is. A problem in HIM. You put him in his place in a way that he hears you. I honestly would tell him if he wanted to continue with that attitude, he’d have to leave your presence. If you knew how dangerous this crap is..you would. I assure you. It’s not healthy to be married to someone who refuses to have any compassion, talk to you or treat you with disrespect. I know my family is on notice now, I will tolerate no more of it. I am done. BTW…. I know now why I’ve turned to Internet Support groups to be treated humanely, with respect, with kindness, with concern, with support. It has been because it’s been.. quite different in my family life. I am insisting that change. I’m not leaving you all, but I see it so clearly now. You all aren’t "fake" and this isn’t some fantasy land.. I know I can come here anytime I have a problem and speak. That’s been completely non existent in my personal life. I will never again be "guilted" into getting help from you people, you’ve been more of a family to me than my own. I’m working on my family and laying down the law..but anyone who has that feeling there’s not something right about this.. look around you and see if you are getting this from those around you. Chances are, you are not. Love you guys a lot. Sally — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Kellie, I didn’t want to be the one to say it first, but it sure sounds like what everyone else said. If he will go to counseling and take it seriously, then you might have a good chance of fixing things. Otherwise, you deserve much better! I went through a very similar situation. My anxiety and panic was very much out of control when we got married. It didn’t take long for her to stop caring. And the rest just sucks. ((((Kellie)))) — Tony I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty. Albert Einstein — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Other mass murders in Canada allowed by inept Canadian Gov

admin — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Yet more failures of the Candian Gov to protect their people. Looks like they were so preoccupied talking shit about the US, their own country went down the tubes. Read it and weep: http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=53fc543c-0bd0-4d74-a42a-123fa35f2867 Other mass murders in Canada Canadian Press Published: Sunday, April 09, 2006 Article tools Printer friendly E-mail Font: * * * * Some high-profile cases of mass or multiple murders in Canada: — Three hundred and twenty-nine people, including 278 Canadians, killed when bomb explodes on an Air India jet flying from Toronto to Bombay in June 1985. Two British Columbia men were tried for murder but were found not guilty. — Fourteen women killed by anti-feminist Marc Lepine at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique engineering school in December 1989. Lepine wounded another nine women and four men and fatally shot himself. — Thirteen people died after being herded into a storage room in Montreal’s Gargantua nightclub in 1975. Some were shot but most suffocated when the building was set on fire in what was believed to be an underworld contract hit. — Nine people gunned down by Mark Chahal, a spurned son-in-law in Vernon, B.C., who killed his estranged wife, her bride-to-be-sister and seven other relatives before killing himself in April 1996. — Nine people slain in 1967 in Shell Lake, Sask., by Robert Hoffman, who was later sent to an Ontario mental institution. — Nine miners killed by deliberately set blast in Yellowknife’s Giant Mine in September 1992. Roger Warren, a striking miner, sentenced to life in prison for setting the bomb during a bitter strike-lockout. — The bodies of eight men are found in four vehicles in a farmer’s field near Shedden, in southwestern Ontario on April 8, 2006. — Seven people, including six children, murdered in 1965 by Leonard Hogue, a former Vancouver police constable, who then killed himself. — Bodies of six campers found in burned-out car in Wells Gray Provincial Park north of Kamloops, B.C., in 1982. David Shearing of Clearwater, B.C., confesses. — Bodies of four adults and a baby associated with the doomsday cult Order of the Solar Temple found in the burned-out remains of a chalet in Morin Heights, Que., in 1994. The couple believed responsible fled to Switzerland where they were among 53 cultists who were killed or committed suicide. — Five people found dead on a farm in Abbotsford, B.C., in September 1996. Police believed the killings were related to the drug trade. — Four employees killed at OC Transpo transit garage in Ottawa by co-worker Pierre Lebrun in April 1999. Lebrun, who had complained of ongoing harassment in the workplace, then killed himself. — Four members of engineering faculty at Concordia University in Montreal gunned down in 1992 by Valery Fabricant, a disgruntled colleague sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 25 years. — Three people killed by wild machine-gun fire in 1984 when Canadian Forces Cpl. Denis Lortie invades Quebec legislature. Lortie freed on day parole in 1995. — Three people killed and a fourth injured after a botched robbery at a McDonald’s restaurant in Sydney River, N.S. in 1992. Three men handed life sentences for the triple-slaying. — Three shot to death in 1992 at Ontario Glove, a plant in Waterloo, Ont., by co-worker Patrick Dombroskie. He then drove to nearby Cambridge and surrendered to police.

Response:

oh surely we have topped that!!! The 10-year average homicide rates (1987-1996) for Canada averaged 2.3 and for the United States averaged 8.8. TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER (MID-1970s) COUNTRY PER 100,000 (1) Lesotho 141 (2) Bahamas 23 (3) Guyana 22 (4) Lebanon 20 (5) Netherlands Antilles 12 (6) Iraq 12 (7) Sri Lanka 12 (8) Cyprus 11 (9) Trindad & Tobago 10 (10) Jamaica 10 TEN WORST STATES FOR MURDER, 2003 STATE PER 100,000 (1) Louisiana 13.0 (2) Maryland 9.5 (3) Mississippi 9.3 (4) Nevada 8.8 (5) Arizona 7.9 (6) Georgia 7.6 (7) South Carolina 7.2 (8) California 6.8 (9) Tennessee 6.8 (10) Alabama 6.6 PROVINCES AND TERRITORIES RANKED BY HOMICIDE RATE, 2003 PROVINCE/TERRITORY PER 100,000 (1) Nunavut 10.21 (2) Northwest Territories 9.55 (3) Saskatchewan 4.12 (4) Manitoba 3.70 (5) Yukon 3.22 (6) British Columbia 2.24 (7) Alberta 2.00 (8) Ontario 1.45 (9) Quebec 1.34 (10) New Brunswick 1.07 (11) Newfoundland 0.96 (12) Nova Scotia 0.85 (13) Prince Edward Island 0.73 A good piece of advice would seem to be, "Don’t hang-around with (or marry-into) a bad crowd." That includes occupations that require associations with dangerous people, such as taxi-driving, liquor store work and police work, but it also includes country & city of residence. Other adages would be, "Don’t be the guardian of valuables, even if those valuables are your own" and "stay sober". http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

Response:

It seems that according to our leader, I along with the majority of Americans, just don’t understand what is going on in the world. I especially don’t understand what is going on in Iraq; and upon today’s speech by the president, I don’t understand him nor his administrations stance on torture and how to conduct even a fabricated war with dignity. As he reminded us today: "You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is – and the American people have got to understand this – that this program won’t go forward if there’s vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It’s just not going to go forward." http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l152/metalcelt/200px-Abu_Ghraib_53.jpg http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l152/metalcelt/200px-AbuGhraibAbuse… http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l152/metalcelt/3falluja.jpg When I mull it over, there really is a lot I don’t understand… There is a lot I don’t understand about your thinking and actions Mr. Bush. Now that I’ve thought about it, I hope I never do.

Response:

Teacher pleads guilty to sex with boy, 14

admin — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> And the problem now is that women have been given all the rights that > Men have, without and equal responsibility to go with them. > There is no reason not to hold them accountable for their actions, the > same as Men. > None whatsoever.

Of course there is.. Men raping women is a crime..Women raping men is a gift. ATTRACTIVE women that is.

Response:

"Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" wrote in message news:Xns9719399C4E522newbnewbcom@70.169.32.36… >> Every single one of these bitches gets a slap on the hand. Then they go >> on Oprah or somewhere else to sell their "love story". And they get >> paid too. > Do you call prison a slap on the hand? Not that logic & reason matter in > your world, which is as cuckoo as an NRA meeting.

Uhhhhh CUSE me!!!! MZZZZZZZZ. Le Tourneau did NOT get prison until the SECOND time she got knocked up by the LITTLE BOY! Of the half dozen other FEMALE TEACHERS busted for shagging LITTLE KIDS……………. NONE so far have done prison time.

Response:

Hardpan writes: > Wrong!

Because you say so? > In America a slave was considered 3/5th a man under law, so they were > considered human.

I was not limiting my observation to the United States, and the context of my observation was different (the moral justification for slavery, as opposite to legal definitions and details). > Slavery was condemned long before the DOI was written.

Yes, but prohibitions weren’t written into law in the U.S. until much later. > Morality has a basis in survival, so it is not to be swept under the > rug as easily as some would have it.

Morality and survival are unrelated. > I didn’t say that, and we are talking about all children, not just > teens.

A 14-year-old is a teen. However, I don’t see why sexual activity at any age must automatically be molestation. Sex is not torture, and even toddlers masturbate. > Molestation is not just a sexual term, you understand that, of course.

If it is not a sexual term, then it has no place in a discussion of sex. > Myself, for one.

I thought so. But you are not necessarily representative. > Its also a fact that children born to single mothers do worse in life > then children raised in a two-parent family, in a large percentage.

I don’t see the relevance of this. > So for you consent means everything, correct?

Consent is the key. If people consent, it’s nobody else’s business. If they do not, their rights are being violated and it seems morally justifiable to me to intervene to protect those rights. > And you can always prove that a rape victim was consent/no-consent > rape, correct?

All you have to do is ask the alleged victim. > "The law" used to say that Jews could be shunned and taken prisoners > as well, but I fail to see that that fact made it right either.

Then you also see that declaring sex with minors to be rape does not make it so. > And when they don’t, they go to jail where this teacher should be.

I don’t see the relevance of this comment. > You claim you live in another country, correct?

Another as opposed to which country? > In America, children are covered by one health care system or another, > but not adults, like a 25 year old man.

Which health-care systems cover children but not adults? > Yes, it is when they pass transmittable diseases and unwanted children > along with the sex.

Which STDs and unwanted children were produced by the sexual activity between LaFave and her student? > So the age does make a difference to you, else why bring up her age at > violation?

Because the law bases a great deal on age. I don’t personally care much about age. > Becoming a Man and being an adult are two different things altogether.

Explain the difference. > A 25 year old female is a grown woman to a little 14 year old boy.

She is a grown woman, period. And a 14-year-old boy isn’t necessarily little, if he has passed through puberty. > And non-sexually repressed societies often have lax standards in all > their affairs as well.

So? > A 14 year old girl having sex with 2 or 3 adult men a day would not > make her a slut in your eyes?

Sluttiness, to the extent that it exists at all, is a function of one’s attitude towards sex, and not the frequency with which one engages in it. So the frequency of her sexual activity is uncorrelated with her supposed sluttiness. In other words, no, it would not make her a slut in my eyes. Lots of people enjoy sex, and I don’t see why she cannot be among them. > Which country are you from again?

What difference does that make? > Where are you?

Why does it matter? Isn’t morality universal? > Why don’t you ask her?

Some things are none of my business. > I assume that, as a young child, that you let every boy (or girl) that > wanted to, to come over and have sex with her in your home, correct?

As a young child, I had no children. — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

news:a4lfo1hec34af71uo24dlt3733ec44q5ha@4ax.com… > Stinky writes: >> Prison? She got two years house arrest. That’s a slap on the wrist >> for a teacher abusing her power and having sex with a minor. > Where was the abuse of power in this case?

When she yanked his dick out of his pants and started in on the KID! >> Granted she can never teach again and has to register as a sex offender. > Which seems harsh.

Awwww POOOR BAYYYYBEEEEEEE!

Response:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

news:2qtfo1hoqnde5fo5ubta2gcgb5t75hmars@4ax.com… > greg writes: >> Do you want your daughter to be taught by convicted pedophiles? > Pedophilia isn’t a crime.

Not per se, but SCREWING little kids IS!!!

Response:

greg writes: > I would say that your attitude is apalling.

You’re entitled to your opinion. > This woman took advantage of a fourteen year old.

He consented to it. She asked him several times if he really wanted to do it, and he said yes. Nobody forced anyone, and he unambiguously consented. > She is a rapist.

Hardly. Rape is a very different thing, and most notably it involves a lack of consent. > Take it from somebody who’s been there.

Lots of people have been there, but the only ones you hear about are the ones who are screwed up by it. Some adults are screwed up by sexual relations as well. That doesn’t mean that everyone is screwed up by sex, at any age. > The kid may be apparently OK now but I’d be checking again > in ten years. The affects on young men and boys > who are molested by women are subtle, insidious and long term.

The effects on adult men are also subtle, insidious, and long-term. Additionally, the same is true for women, at all ages. > She has taken a huge risk with this kid’s whole future.

Lots of people have sexual experiences very similar to this one, and they don’t all end up mentally ill. For some people, sex is traumatic at any age; and for some others, it is never traumatic, irrespective of age. — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

greg writes: > Do you want your daughter to be taught by convicted pedophiles?

Pedophilia isn’t a crime. It’s probably not ideal for pedophiles to teach children, since that puts them in the midst of temptation, but many other people are placed in other similar situations, and they manage to control themselves. On the other hand, if someone has engaged in harmful behavior, such as rape (real rape, not statutory rape) or the like, I don’t think that she should be hired for jobs that might present her with potential victims. In this case, she has an actual record of harmful behavior, which is very different from just a state of mind that might be associated with something that is socially unacceptable. Do you want your daughter to be taught by lesbians? — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hardpan wrote: >On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:27:14 +0100, Mxsmanic >wrote: >>Hardpan writes: >>>You will get no argument from me on that score, but it applies to >>>pretty WHITE females, for the most part. >>Being pretty and/or female is always an advantage. >I this case, yes. >Being female is never an advantage outside the law, but that’s just my >opinion, of course. >>>Back in the 1850’s one could say that every Black male should rightly >>>be a slave, because thats what Black men were, for the most part. >>That’s exactly what people did say in those days, at least in the >>southern U.S. That’s why the South had slaves. >And we had a foundation laid down by White men that said all men were >equal under God and the laws of man. >I wonder what ever happened to that little tidbit of history? >>>Would that have made it right? >>There’s no objective standard of right and wrong, although I >>personally disagree with slavery because of its inherent injustice. >Really? >So there is no objective standard that murder and rape is wrong? >Could have fooled me, as all countries in the known world have laws >against these crimes. >>>She didn’t? Then why did she get convicted by a jury of her peers? >>Because what she did was illegal. That doesn’t mean there was >>anything morally wrong with it. >That’s your opinion, not the law. >There is nothing moral about adults molesting children. >There is nothing moral about letting them molest each other either for >that matter. >It leads to all manner of anti-social behaviors later on in life, >that are not good for the individual or society at all. >>>Some people would consent to be tortured or even killed. >>>Would that make it right if we allowed that to slide under the rug as >>>well? >>Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned, if all involved parties consent, >>anything goes, and it’s none of my business or anyone else’s. >The Marquee de Sade’ would have loved you ! >>>There is a law against raping 14 year olds for a good reason. >>This 14-year-old was not raped. He just happened to be under 18, >>which is not the same thing (except by statute). >Yes, it is rape. >A child cannot give consent. The child was a minor. >>>When your little boy gets an STD or knocks the adult female up, make >>>sure that we taxpayers don’t foot the bill. >>Big boys get STDs and knock up females, too. Why does age make any >>difference? >Because big-boys foot the bill for child support and doctor bills. >Little boys don’t and the taxpayers often end up paying the bills. >>>And don’t complain about it either when he is messed up in the head >>>because of this, and blows his brains out, down the road, after >>>turning to drugs and alcohol. >>Why would he be messed up in the head by sex? The only real source of >>trauma in this case is the hysteria that ensued after people found out >>about the sex. >You seem to one of those who think this is all innocent stuff, since >it happened to a young boy, but you are incorrect. The woman was an >adult well past 21 years of age. >Having sex with a woman does not make a boy into a Man, no more so >then a 14 year old girl becomes a woman by fucking some 25 year old >guy. >Do you really think this is even slightly normal behavior, that leads >to a sane, rational life in the future for the victims? >>>So you would have NO PROBLEMS at all with a few 25 year old men >>>banging your 14 year old daughter at least three times a day, correct? >>Correct, if she consents. >Really? >So the idea of your daughter being a total slut doesn’t bother you at >all? >>Of course, she should take precautions >>against STDs and pregnancy, although ultimately that’s her decision, >>not mine. >Yes, it is until, she is 18 in the USA >You are not a parent, are you?

it varys from state to state, I’m sure you know that.

Response:

"greg" wrote in message

news:438807E4.9080005@impulse.net.au… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Mxsmanic wrote: >> greg writes: >>>I would say that your attitude is apalling. >> You’re entitled to your opinion. >>>This woman took advantage of a fourteen year old. >> He consented to it. She asked him several times if he really wanted >> to do it, and he said yes. Nobody forced anyone, and he unambiguously >> consented. > His consent is irrelevant. No fourteen year old can possibly have the > maturity >>>She is a rapist. >> Hardly. Rape is a very different thing, and most notably it involves >> a lack of consent. >>>Take it from somebody who’s been there. >> Lots of people have been there, but the only ones you hear about are >> the ones who are screwed up by it. Some adults are screwed up by >> sexual relations as well. That doesn’t mean that everyone is screwed >> up by sex, at any age. >>>The kid may be apparently OK now but I’d be checking again >>>in ten years. The affects on young men and boys who are molested by women >>>are subtle, insidious and long term.

HAHAHA.. you are actually serious in that this kid will be affected in a negative way? Remember this kid consented to having sex with her and she was a beautiful woman!! So the only affect this kid will have will probably be a higher feeling of achieving his goals and probably more success with women and his career will be better probably for feeling superior to most men…. This kid has it made…….lucky bastard…… Women will want him.. you just watch how time gives this kid everything he wants. It’s not like he was forcibly raped by a fat ugly woman!!!! That would be a negative affect LOL. Wasn’t there was a recent case where the teacher ended up marring the kid after having two of his children.. she did some time.. but I dont think she should have. >> The effects on adult men are also subtle, insidious, and long-term. >> Additionally, the same is true for women, at all ages.

HAHAH you are comparing the long term affects of rape on women and comparing them to men LOL too funny….there is a difference whether the predator is attractive enough to be actually wanted by the victim.. also consider the means used.. violent rape vs. victim consenting …BIG DIFFERENCE >>>She has taken a huge risk with this kid’s whole future.

Yea she improved his future tremendously….. that teacher was friggin’ hot! >> Lots of people have sexual experiences very similar to this one, and >> they don’t all end up mentally ill. For some people, sex is traumatic >> at any age; and for some others, it is never traumatic, irrespective >> of age.

yea well.. they should have a psychological examination for the victim before handing down a sentence to a so called "sexual predator" especially in the case of this woman and cases like them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Mxsmanic wrote: >Stinky writes: >>Prison? She got two years house arrest. That’s a slap on the wrist >>for a teacher abusing her power and having sex with a minor. >Where was the abuse of power in this case? >>Granted she can never teach again and has to register as a sex offender. >Which seems harsh.

she *was* a teacher when she did the deed after school hours. so, in a sense, she did abuse her position of "authority" by engaging sex with one of her students. statutory rape is a lame charge particulary if the sex was consensual between 2 different age groups of either sex.

Response:

"Stinky" wrote in news:1132967428.219585.149830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote: >> "Darkfalz" wrote in >> news:1132924271.521901.181580 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> > Every single one of these bitches gets a slap on the hand. Then >> > they go on Oprah or somewhere else to sell their "love story". And >> > they get paid too. >> Do you call prison a slap on the hand? Not that logic & reason matter >> in your world, which is as cuckoo as an NRA meeting. > Prison? She got two years house arrest. That’s a slap on the wrist > for a teacher abusing her power and having sex with a minor. Granted > she can never teach again and has to register as a sex offender.

Others have gotten prison for it, I’m sure. — As for the pastor, after four days of listening to science experts dismantling the case for intelligent design, he was unimpressed. "They’re babblers," said the pastor, the Rev. Jim Grove, who leads a 40- member independent Baptist church outside of Dover. "The more Ph.D.’s you get, it seems like the further away from God you get." (NY Times, 10-2- 05)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Mxsmanic wrote: > greg writes: >>I would say that your attitude is apalling. > You’re entitled to your opinion. >>This woman took advantage of a fourteen year old. > He consented to it. She asked him several times if he really wanted > to do it, and he said yes. Nobody forced anyone, and he unambiguously > consented.

His consent is irrelevant. No fourteen year old can possibly have the maturity – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>She is a rapist. > Hardly. Rape is a very different thing, and most notably it involves > a lack of consent. >>Take it from somebody who’s been there. > Lots of people have been there, but the only ones you hear about are > the ones who are screwed up by it. Some adults are screwed up by > sexual relations as well. That doesn’t mean that everyone is screwed > up by sex, at any age. >>The kid may be apparently OK now but I’d be checking again >>in ten years. The affects on young men and boys >>who are molested by women are subtle, insidious and long term. > The effects on adult men are also subtle, insidious, and long-term. > Additionally, the same is true for women, at all ages. >>She has taken a huge risk with this kid’s whole future. > Lots of people have sexual experiences very similar to this one, and > they don’t all end up mentally ill. For some people, sex is traumatic > at any age; and for some others, it is never traumatic, irrespective > of age.

Response:

Mxsmanic wrote: > greg writes: >>Do you want your daughter to be taught by convicted pedophiles? > Pedophilia isn’t a crime. It’s probably not ideal for pedophiles to > teach children, since that puts them in the midst of temptation, but > many other people are placed in other similar situations, and they > manage to control themselves.

Answer the question. Do you want your daughter to be taught by somebody with a history of engaging in sex with children. I’m not interested in your definition of paedophilia. You know exactly what I mean. > On the other hand, if someone has engaged in harmful behavior, such as > rape (real rape, not statutory rape) or the like, I don’t think that > she should be hired for jobs that might present her with potential > victims. In this case, she has an actual record of harmful behavior, > which is very different from just a state of mind that might be > associated with something that is socially unacceptable. > Do you want your daughter to be taught by lesbians?

The teacher’s sexual orientation is irrelevant. You are trying on the standard feminist diversionary tactics. This is not relevant. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Consent is irrelevant. He is fourteen. >>She is a rapist. > Hardly. Rape is a very different thing, and most notably it involves > a lack of consent.

As I said he’s fourteen. >>Take it from somebody who’s been there. > Lots of people have been there, but the only ones you hear about are > the ones who are screwed up by it. Some adults are screwed up by > sexual relations as well. That doesn’t mean that everyone is screwed > up by sex, at any age.

Vastly more likely with a fourteen year old tho. >>The kid may be apparently OK now but I’d be checking again >>in ten years. The affects on young men and boys >>who are molested by women are subtle, insidious and long term. > The effects on adult men are also subtle, insidious, and long-term. > Additionally, the same is true for women, at all ages.

Were not discussing adults here. >>She has taken a huge risk with this kid’s whole future. > Lots of people have sexual experiences very similar to this one, and > they don’t all end up mentally ill. For some people, sex is traumatic > at any age; and for some others, it is never traumatic, irrespective > of age.

OK then. How old is your daughter? How about an intro. You never know, she could be as "open minded" as yourself. Could be a lark eh. Funny how all of these little diversions and excuses and justifications start coming out when it’s women being caught. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Mxsmanic wrote: > Stinky writes: >>Prison? She got two years house arrest. That’s a slap on the wrist >>for a teacher abusing her power and having sex with a minor. > Where was the abuse of power in this case? >>Granted she can never teach again and has to register as a sex offender. > Which seems harsh.

Do you want your daughter to be taught by convicted pedophiles? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Hardpan writes: > Being female is never an advantage outside the law, but that’s just my > opinion, of course.

I disagree. There are numerous advantages to being female, particularly in developed nations. > And we had a foundation laid down by White men that said all men were > equal under God and the laws of man.

At one time, people with black skin were not considered human beings, at least not by many people with white skin. It was thus possible to enslave them without infringing on the principle of equality, for people with these beliefs. > I wonder what ever happened to that little tidbit of history?

Standards were different in those days. Explicit condemnation of slavery was considered as early as the writing of the Declaration of Independence, but it became clear that the slave-holding colonies would never sign on if such text appeared. > Really?

Yes. > So there is no objective standard that murder and rape is wrong?

Correct. > Could have fooled me, as all countries in the known world have laws > against these crimes.

Some people are easily fooled. There are one or two states with no laws against murder, as I recall, and there are considerably more with no clear prohibitions of rape, again IIRC. > That’s your opinion, not the law.

Morality is always a matter of opinion. > There is nothing moral about adults molesting children.

Having sex with a consenting teenager is not molestation. > There is nothing moral about letting them molest each other either for > that matter.

Sex between consenting teenagers is not molestation, either. > It leads to all manner of anti-social behaviors later on in life, > that are not good for the individual or society at all.

Does it? Show cause and effect. > The Marquee de Sade’ would have loved you !

I don’t know. I’m not sure that he favored consent. > Yes, it is rape.

Not in reality. Statutory rape is rape declared de jure, as opposed to actual rape (which involves a lack of consent). > A child cannot give consent. The child was a minor.

That’s what the law says, but the reality is that anyone can give consent. The law used to say that blacks could be enslaved, too. > Because big-boys foot the bill for child support and doctor bills.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. > Little boys don’t and the taxpayers often end up paying the bills.

Show cause and effect. > You seem to one of those who think this is all innocent stuff, since > it happened to a young boy, but you are incorrect. The woman was an > adult well past 21 years of age.

The fact that it happened to a young boy is irrelevant. To me, sex between consenting parties is fine, and is really none of my business. The woman was 23, and the man was 14. They were only nine years apart. And people get married younger than 14. And 14-year-olds have generally passed through puberty, and can reproduce. > Having sex with a woman does not make a boy into a Man, no more so > then a 14 year old girl becomes a woman by fucking some 25 year old > guy.

Many 14-year-olds are already adults sexually, particularly if they are interested in sex. They don’t have to be "made into" anything, as they become physiological adults automatically and inevitably. > Do you really think this is even slightly normal behavior, that leads > to a sane, rational life in the future for the victims?

I don’t see any problem with it. Some societies don’t mind, but sexually repressed societies often have a problem with it (and with just about everything else involving sex). > Really?

Absolutely. > So the idea of your daughter being a total slut doesn’t bother you at > all?

Having sex would not make my daughter a slut. She’s entitled to engage in sex if she wants to. It’s harmless, if she takes reasonable precautions. > Yes, it is until, she is 18 in the USA

I’m not in the USA. > You are not a parent, are you?

What would my daughter say? — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Mxsmanic wrote: > Hardpan writes: >>Being female is never an advantage outside the law, but that’s just my >>opinion, of course. > I disagree. There are numerous advantages to being female, > particularly in developed nations. >>And we had a foundation laid down by White men that said all men were >>equal under God and the laws of man. > At one time, people with black skin were not considered human beings, > at least not by many people with white skin. It was thus possible to > enslave them without infringing on the principle of equality, for > people with these beliefs. >>I wonder what ever happened to that little tidbit of history? > Standards were different in those days. > Explicit condemnation of slavery was considered as early as the > writing of the Declaration of Independence, but it became clear that > the slave-holding colonies would never sign on if such text appeared. >>Really? > Yes. >>So there is no objective standard that murder and rape is wrong? > Correct. >>Could have fooled me, as all countries in the known world have laws >>against these crimes. > Some people are easily fooled. There are one or two states with no > laws against murder, as I recall, and there are considerably more with > no clear prohibitions of rape, again IIRC. >>That’s your opinion, not the law. > Morality is always a matter of opinion. >>There is nothing moral about adults molesting children. > Having sex with a consenting teenager is not molestation. >>There is nothing moral about letting them molest each other either for >>that matter. > Sex between consenting teenagers is not molestation, either. >>It leads to all manner of anti-social behaviors later on in life, >>that are not good for the individual or society at all. > Does it? Show cause and effect. >>The Marquee de Sade’ would have loved you ! > I don’t know. I’m not sure that he favored consent. >>Yes, it is rape. > Not in reality. Statutory rape is rape declared de jure, as opposed > to actual rape (which involves a lack of consent). >>A child cannot give consent. The child was a minor. > That’s what the law says, but the reality is that anyone can give > consent. The law used to say that blacks could be enslaved, too. >>Because big-boys foot the bill for child support and doctor bills. > Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. >>Little boys don’t and the taxpayers often end up paying the bills. > Show cause and effect. >>You seem to one of those who think this is all innocent stuff, since >>it happened to a young boy, but you are incorrect. The woman was an >>adult well past 21 years of age. > The fact that it happened to a young boy is irrelevant. To me, sex > between consenting parties is fine, and is really none of my business. > The woman was 23, and the man was 14. They were only nine years > apart. And people get married younger than 14. And 14-year-olds have > generally passed through puberty, and can reproduce. >>Having sex with a woman does not make a boy into a Man, no more so >>then a 14 year old girl becomes a woman by fucking some 25 year old >>guy. > Many 14-year-olds are already adults sexually, particularly if they > are interested in sex. They don’t have to be "made into" anything, as > they become physiological adults automatically and inevitably. >>Do you really think this is even slightly normal behavior, that leads >>to a sane, rational life in the future for the victims? > I don’t see any problem with it. Some societies don’t mind, but > sexually repressed societies often have a problem with it (and with > just about everything else involving sex). >>Really? > Absolutely. >>So the idea of your daughter being a total slut doesn’t bother you at >>all? > Having sex would not make my daughter a slut. She’s entitled to > engage in sex if she wants to. It’s harmless, if she takes reasonable > precautions. >>Yes, it is until, she is 18 in the USA > I’m not in the USA. >>You are not a parent, are you? > What would my daughter say?

I would say that your attitude is apalling. This woman took advantage of a fourteen year old. She is a rapist. Take it from somebody who’s been there. The kid may be apparently OK now but I’d be checking again in ten years. The affects on young men and boys who are molested by women are subtle, insidious and long term. She has taken a huge risk with this kid’s whole future. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote: > "Darkfalz" wrote in news:1132924271.521901.181580 > @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Every single one of these bitches gets a slap on the hand. Then they go > > on Oprah or somewhere else to sell their "love story". And they get > > paid too. > Do you call prison a slap on the hand? Not that logic & reason matter in > your world, which is as cuckoo as an NRA meeting.

Prison? She got two years house arrest. That’s a slap on the wrist for a teacher abusing her power and having sex with a minor. Granted she can never teach again and has to register as a sex offender.

Response:

Stinky writes: > Prison? She got two years house arrest. That’s a slap on the wrist > for a teacher abusing her power and having sex with a minor.

Where was the abuse of power in this case? > Granted she can never teach again and has to register as a sex offender.

Which seems harsh. — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

Hardpan writes: > You will get no argument from me on that score, but it applies to > pretty WHITE females, for the most part.

Being pretty and/or female is always an advantage. > Back in the 1850’s one could say that every Black male should rightly > be a slave, because thats what Black men were, for the most part.

That’s exactly what people did say in those days, at least in the southern U.S. That’s why the South had slaves. > Would that have made it right?

There’s no objective standard of right and wrong, although I personally disagree with slavery because of its inherent injustice. > She didn’t? Then why did she get convicted by a jury of her peers?

Because what she did was illegal. That doesn’t mean there was anything morally wrong with it. > Some people would consent to be tortured or even killed. > Would that make it right if we allowed that to slide under the rug as > well?

Absolutely. As far as I’m concerned, if all involved parties consent, anything goes, and it’s none of my business or anyone else’s. > There is a law against raping 14 year olds for a good reason.

This 14-year-old was not raped. He just happened to be under 18, which is not the same thing (except by statute). > When your little boy gets an STD or knocks the adult female up, make > sure that we taxpayers don’t foot the bill.

Big boys get STDs and knock up females, too. Why does age make any difference? > And don’t complain about it either when he is messed up in the head > because of this, and blows his brains out, down the road, after > turning to drugs and alcohol.

Why would he be messed up in the head by sex? The only real source of trauma in this case is the hysteria that ensued after people found out about the sex. > So you would have NO PROBLEMS at all with a few 25 year old men > banging your 14 year old daughter at least three times a day, correct?

Correct, if she consents. Of course, she should take precautions against STDs and pregnancy, although ultimately that’s her decision, not mine. — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

Hardpan writes: > "We all know that no man who raped a 14 year old girl, like this > creature raped this lad, would NOT be under house arrest, > instead doing hard time in a prison cell with a cell-chum named > "bubba", now don’t we?

Yes, that occurred to me as well. > So much for "equality" and equal rights under the law for Men.

She’s a pretty young female. Just about anything is permitted if you’re a pretty young female. > Hopefully she will get raped one day and then the rapist can use her > own defense and sentencing to get a lighter sentence, just a she did.

Why? She didn’t do anything wrong. Her sexual partner consented, after all. It’s just that there was a law against it. I suggest that statutory rape laws be repealed instead. If both partners consent, there’s no reason why it should be illegal. — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

Every single one of these bitches gets a slap on the hand. Then they go on Oprah or somewhere else to sell their "love story". And they get paid too.

Response:

"Darkfalz" wrote in news:1132924271.521901.181580 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Every single one of these bitches gets a slap on the hand. Then they go > on Oprah or somewhere else to sell their "love story". And they get > paid too.

Do you call prison a slap on the hand? Not that logic & reason matter in your world, which is as cuckoo as an NRA meeting.

Response:

Hardpan wrote in news:49cdo1ddi7hol96q4qa3seq242jnck85u9@4ax.com: > Teacher pleads guilty to sex with boy, 14

You’ll never see me having sex with boys! — As for the pastor, after four days of listening to science experts dismantling the case for intelligent design, he was unimpressed. "They’re babblers," said the pastor, the Rev. Jim Grove, who leads a 40-member independent Baptist church outside of Dover. "The more Ph.D.’s you get, it seems like the further away from God you get." (NY Times, 10-2-05)

Response:

Troll writes: > I often read on cosmoforums grecosluts who ask what they should do to > seduce 14-17yo boys.

With that age group, women must make an effort _not_ to seduce them, since everything seems sexy and seductive to a teenager. — Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Response:

An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter

admin — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Strap-On Veterans for Truth We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America

Hey JimSummers…

admin — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

In news:4cc0b465b439b058d9cd68d4414ec7cc@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com, JimSummers wrote : > > How is it going? You haven’t been posting much >lately. Have you > > spoken to that Deborah girl yet? > No, I forgot about it after I found out she was 100% Feminist > EVIL. She announced in class that the patriarchy oppresses women and > I said, "FORGET THAT IDEA"

Well you could have tried to oppress her after class, after all, she already thinks she’s oppressed by you, so why not make it for real?

Response:

South Park conservatives and "family values"

admin — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

wrote in message

news:1128200050.758485.205370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com… > Ilya Shambat.

OMG, you killed Kenny, you bastard!

Response:

ilya_shambat2…@yahoo.com wrote in news:1128200050.758485.205370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > The media has identified a new political class in America. Its name is > the "Wildcat Library Wankers." Taking their inspiration from Ilya > Shambat whining about American penal codes, this group, predominantly > with common sense and sanity that Wankboi lacks, has apparently > decided that the problem with the world is sociopathic predators, > plagiarizing fucktards and wannabe spirtual counselors with severe > delusional issues and seeks a > Get-Ilya’s-hands-off-his-root-on-public-and-semi-private-places type of > policies

[flush] Fuck it, I can’t make this more delusional than it already is. You try it. — Cujo – The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte! Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!. Hammer of Thor – July 2005. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. "PhDs in psychology (and other fields as well) see me as insightful, intellectual, sharp, clear, profound, pragmatic and very useful and constructive. Spinics see me as a "kook. Who shall we believe?" – Ed on a post-Xmas meltdown.

Response:

"Franz Bestuchev" (franz.bestuc…@gmail.com) writes: > wrote in message > news:1128200050.758485.205370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com… >> Ilya Shambat. > OMG, you killed Kenny, you bastard!

Darn, you beat me at it:) —

Response:

Your post is well written but I am not sure of the accuracy of your political analysis. The phenomenon of middle-class "lifestyle liberals" who vote for conservative candidates certainly exists but in most cases such people are really libertarian. They vote for conservatives because they stand for low taxes and (at least supposedly) small government. The "family values", "culture wars" conservative agenda is something they don’t take seriously or else they don’t think it will affect them. Nostalgia for an imagines past is not really part of it.

Response:

Malvolio wrote: > Your post is well written but I am not sure of the accuracy of your > political analysis. > The phenomenon of middle-class "lifestyle liberals" who vote for > conservative candidates certainly exists but in most cases such people are > really libertarian. They vote for conservatives because they stand for low > taxes and (at least supposedly) small government. The "family values", > "culture wars" conservative agenda is something they don’t take seriously > or else they don’t think it will affect them. Nostalgia for an imagines > past is not really part of it.

Agreed. Although I do think there is a smidgen of the nostalgia in all cases. Everyone is hooked on the Garden of Eden and working out what mindset is really behind the forbidden fruit. Bearing in mind our politicians fly around the world, learning about different cultures in a way we just can’t, yet they don’t understand their own people at an existance level. I have a feeling Illya picks up on all of these things, their consequencse and the statement it all makes of todays "society". I wish I could concentrate for long enough to explain what I feel!

Response:

Can anyone name a single conservative "value" that hasn’t already been trashed by the Southpark writers? Neither liberals or conservatives come off very well after Cartman and Co. get down with them. And that’s what I think MOST people find very amusing. ZenDog

Response:

On 1 Oct 2005 13:54:10 -0700, ilya_shambat2…@yahoo.com wrote: >The media has identified a new political class in America. Its name is >the "South Park Conservatives."

What’d you do, plagiarize someone else’s article? South Park!!! You have a lot more spare time than I have, obviously. I thought the movie was funny but I’ve only bothered to watch the show once. We watched Team America with the older kids. I wouldn’t have paid for it if I’d know it’d be so raw. My wife thought the movie was a bit left leaning.

Response:

Franz Bestuchev wrote: > wrote in message > news:1128200050.758485.205370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com… > > Ilya Shambat. > OMG, you killed Kenny, you bastard!

Kenny must have the most lifetimes of anyone in history.

Response:

wrote in message

news:1128381640.019799.274720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com… > Franz Bestuchev wrote: >> wrote in message >> news:1128200050.758485.205370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com… >> > Ilya Shambat. >> OMG, you killed Kenny, you bastard! > Kenny must have the most lifetimes of anyone in history.

That’s because he’s a South Park conservative.

Response:

In alt.suicide.holiday zen_dog wrote: > Can anyone name a single conservative "value" that hasn’t already been > trashed by the Southpark writers? Neither liberals or conservatives > come off very well after Cartman and Co. get down with them. And that’s > what I think MOST people find very amusing.

This too is true. The South Park writers are equal-opportunity destroyers. They make fun of pomposity wherever it turns up. And I know plenty of both liberals and conservatives who hate the show. Probably for that reason. Malvolio

Response:

Franz Bestuchev wrote: > >> OMG, you killed Kenny, you bastard! > > Kenny must have the most lifetimes of anyone in history. > That’s because he’s a South Park conservative.

He needs to know how to get away from people who abuse him, in that case. Or they’ll just keep killing him and coming up with reasons why they are right. Ilya Shambat.

Response:

The media has identified a new political class in America. Its name is the "South Park Conservatives." Taking their inspiration from South Park’s lampooning of American liberalism, this group, predominantly gen-X, has apparently decided that the problem with the world is American liberalism and seeks a return-to-the-roots type of communitarianism that wishes to resurrect a state of affairs that it idealizes, without understanding either its true character or what it would mean – to them especially – if it were to come in the place of the current arrangement. Mimicking the line preached by his grandparents, the South Park conservative blames what he calls "the sixties generation" for all that he sees to be wrong with the world. Replacing the "don’t trust anyone over 30" line of his parents with the "don’t trust anyone between ages 40 and 60, but trust unabashedly anyone over 70 and bludgeon anyone under 30 into perpetuation of the same falsehood," the South Park conservative believes to be resurrecting a lifestyle that he longs for and idealizes, but whose true ramifications he knows nothing about – and which, if he were to know, would most likely not hold in such an absolute high esteem. This is especially the case for the South Park conservatives on the Usenet, who include, among others, serial harrassers; gigolos; witches living with warlocks; habitual drug users and pushers; gambling addicts; and many others whose lifestyle – and liberties that they take for granted – would be obliterated if the order they seek would come to pass. The South Park conservative tends to believe that the trauma of his generation – the trauma of not having a stable upbringing – is the worst thing that can happen to a person, and that any other trauma is to it to be held subservient. With this consideration he wishes to recreate an omnipotent family and community. Believing that life was wonderful before the evil liberals had anything to do with it, and that the hippie revolt was a result of what an Onion article called "toxic self-absorption," the South Park conservative seeks to reconstruct what he believes to have been the way of righteousness and goodness. Allow me to bring to light an understanding of what is the reality of that which the South Park conservative idealizes. I had a friend from India, whom I will call Indira, who was raised in a good high-caste family, in a country in which the family and community were paramount and family values trumped all other considerations. Her parents, although they had money, lived in a one-room apartment, in order that their daughter not ask them for toys. Her father brutally beat her and her mother each day, until her mother, in her words, turned from being beautiful and kind to being a malicious and totally toxic person. Because Indira was a feminist, her mother and grandmother tried to arrange to get her raped, in order that she know the difference between women and men. When Indira turned 18, her parents took away her documents and kept her in prison inside the house, with no telephone, books, TV, computer or friends, until at age 22 they married her off to a man from a lower caste, in punishment for her not having kept her virginity. At which point her good high-caste parents abandoned her, claiming that she was too Americanized for them to have anything to do with. I know another family from another place with strong family values. The mother in that family – apparently regarding herself Mother Russia herself, and regarded by many as Ms. Stalin – has a son who is 47 years old and a son who is 36 years old. She has used string-pulling, political and economic meddling, threats, manipulation, psychological violence, and other methods to prevent the 47-year-old son from marrying, and has been maliciously attempting to destroy the marriage of the 36-year-old. In America itself, I am acquainted with a woman whose mother pulled the same trick on her until someone – probably one of the same evil liberals – convinced her, at age 32, that she did not have to live with her mother for the rest of her life and can indeed have liberties promised by American constitution. The South Park conservative is not acquainted with such realities. So he believes that the lack of community and the lack of strong family that he has experienced is the worst thing that could have possibly happened to a human being. His parents, when confronted with such ideas, come to regard the child as being ungrateful – ungrateful for the liberties they have fought for and ungrateful for the fact that they did not themselves inflict upon him the kind of authoritarianism in which they were raised. Each generation raises the next generation the way it wishes it had been raised; and in each case it finds itself shocked that the children are not like themselves and want something else – and, in their view, do not appreciate them. The desire to provide for the next generation the upbringing one wishes one had, is a projection of one’s own needs upon one’s child. It works to the extent that one’s child is similar to oneself; and it does not work to the extent that he is not. The latter of which motivates all kinds of guilt-tripping, attack, and viciousness toward the child – when the reason is the basic one: Of human difference. What’s right for one person is not what’s right for the next. One does no better when he tries to treat the other person the way he wants to be treated than when he is simply being careless and inconsiderate. The only time one actually does good, is when he figures out how the next person wants to be treated – and does so; and, rather than projecting oneself on the next person, honors their individuality and as such honors – them. The first way leads to forcible assimilation of people; the second leads to actual human existence. And it is the second way that can only lead to a world worthy of living in, and a humanity worthy of living in it. This is not of course anything new; but the South Park conservative buys into the lie catering to short-sightedness -the lie that the way of the World War II generation was the way that was eternal and true. This of course falls apart under any historical scrutiny, especially when one considers the flapper generation, the transcendentalist generation, the American Revolutionary War generation, and many other generations whose ways were in no way those wrongly thought to be traditional and eternal, and on the shoulders of whose accomplishments the world rests. Who indeed experiences a greater trauma: My friend from India, or someone who has had an unstable home life? And were it liberals who began the trend of taking children away from parents who either could not handle the job or did not want to? Did all the children in 19th and early 20th century who were sent to boarding schools or given into apprenticeship, or all the children throughout history who were sent into monasteries, or all the children whose parents died in wars, had it better than a child whose father abandoned him or whose mother went insane? And is claiming that one is messed up for life because of it and cannot have a happy existence an honest and responsible attitude? Instead he takes one set of problems and blows them completely out of proportion, while being completely ignorant of similar-level and worse problems with which people around the world are confronted (and were, and still are, confronted in one’s own country). The staggering short-sightedness of the South Park Conservative – who thinks himself smart and responsible but is in fact completely lacking in perspective either historical or psychological – of course plays into the hands of those who want to entrap and usurp. By harnessing the egalitarian-rebellious sentiment common to America’s youth of all generations against the supposed "liberal elites" – the "elites" who have figured out how to overcome oppression of all kinds and to have an existence that’s meaningfully free, beautiful and full of knowledge and wisdom – what is attacked is perhaps the greatest accomplishment in history of the world. And what is empowered, is what seeks to destroy such accomplishments and reduce life to a barbaric level. A level that is far less prudent and ultimately far less free, existing at a level at which meaningful liberties cannot be conceptualized, with the ideas and inspiration that make possible freedom being poo-pooed – and the pre-civilization tribal consciousness destroying people’s rights. By directing this sentiment against the people who figured out finally how to be free and have beautiful life, what is attacked is the greatest fruit of humanity. And the result is a degradation; a degradation that affects not only the South Park generation but also anyone under their spell. It has been said that the children of hippies did not do well. Some believe that the problem was with the hippies; but a more reliable mechanism avails itself when considered the experience of children of people who had American values but grew up in places such as the Soviet Union. And the mechanism is this: The children raised with one set of values at home and another in school and yard, grow up with a confused worldview as well as a battered self-esteem, with the school and yard seeing them as the foreign influence if they practice their parents’ values – and parents attacking them in case they practice the values of school and yard. This is the case for any people who practiced one set of values while living in a society practicing another, and is in no way limited to the hippies. Now I say this, and I say this clearly. When the family becomes omnipotent, classism, racism, sexism and nationalism are not far behind. When one is a part of a family rather than individual (the son does what does his father), if father is robber then so must be the son. If previous generations in one family did not do well, then the future generations are bound to their … read more »

Response:

Your Political Alignment

admin — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (71% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (68, 81) modscore: (43, 41)

Response:

My results: Social liberal 68% Economic liberal 15% I’m a socialist. *raises left fist* Proletarians of ASS, unite!

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote: > A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, > libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): > http://www.okcupid.com/politics > I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will > take again later to get the actual figures.

"You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an… Economic Liberal (33% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness." Am not ! I’m really evil and bad-ass !

Response:

"Lash Rambo" wrote in message

news:Xns96E0A4C562975lrfakeaddrcom@68.1.17.6… >A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, > libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): > http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Apparently I’m quad-word aligned!

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote in news:Xns96E1148EEA8F4lrfakeaddrcom@68.1.17.6: >>> 24. It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each >>> other to a duel and fight a Death Match. >> Of course it should! > Seriously? Why?

Because it would be awesome. And a way to find out if some of those weird martial arts strikes really work. But it would need to be tightly regulated. The challenge would have to be very formal and unmistakable, and the match itself regulated, because you certainly don’t want murders where you can say the guy agreed to a death match when he didn’t. >>> 27. The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but >>> unavoidable. >> I would think that it’s avoidable. It’s avoidable in the first >> world, anyway. > In theory, it’s avoidable any place people can grow food. In > practice, it’s unavoidable due to human greed. So, I said "agree." > Again, maybe the author intended it to read: "All people who starve to > death deserve it." In that case, I’d have answered differently.

Maybe I’m just naively optimistic there, but I think it very well may be avoidable in a realistic way. Probably not in the near future, and probably overpopulation will throw a wrench in any good intentions though. And it certainly wouldn’t happen through consistent free food handouts from one country to another, that’s just silly and creates more problems than it solves in the long run.

Response:

Hmmmpf. Apparently I’m a "Democrat." What a hokey test. It completely failed to detect my feminist anarcho-syndicalist leanings.

Response:

William P wrote in news:Xns96E1FCF82CCwilldotpsympaticodot@207.35.177.135: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Jim Winters" wrote in > news:1128048725.338342.144300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> Lash Rambo wrote: >>> A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, >>> libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): >>> http://www.okcupid.com/politics >>> I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. > Will >>> take again later to get the actual figures. >>>From the test: >> 5. Something like the theory of Natural Selection explains why some >> people are homeless. > I said disagree on that one because I don’t agree with what the author > probably implied, that in some sense homeless people are gentically > "weak".

Hmm…. I hadn’t thought to read it like: "All homeless people deserve to be homeless." Instead, I agreed with the statement at face value, because natural selection easily bends to explain all social and biological inequities. >> 24. It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each >> other to a duel and fight a Death Match. > Of course it should!

Seriously? Why? >> 27. The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but >> unavoidable. > I would think that it’s avoidable. It’s avoidable in the first world, > anyway.

In theory, it’s avoidable any place people can grow food. In practice, it’s unavoidable due to human greed. So, I said "agree." Again, maybe the author intended it to read: "All people who starve to death deserve it." In that case, I’d have answered differently. Maybe I should retake the quiz reading more into the statements. >> 39. The life of one American is worth the lives of several foreigners. > I’m not American, so that’s a no brain answer. Obviously I’m worth at > least 82 Americans.

You better watch out. Some of us know where to find the country you live in!

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote: > LisatheSequel wrote in news:dhhm5s$hk7$1 > @swifty.westend.com: >>You are a Social Conservative (35% permissive) and an Economic Liberal >>(21% permissive. >>You are best described as a: Totalitarian > Would you agree with that? I wouldn’t have ever associated totalitarianism > with you.

I wouldn’t have thought so, but there it is. I answered the questions honestly. Apparently the only way to do things the way I’d do them is under a totalitarian government.

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote… > http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Social Liberal (76% permissive) Economic Liberal (33% permissive) You are best described as a Democrat.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -meg wrote: > Lash Rambo wrote: >>A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, >>libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): >>http://www.okcupid.com/politics >>I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will >>take again later to get the actual figures. > You are a > Social Moderate > (50% permissive) > and an… > Economic Liberal > (20% permissive) > You are best described as a: > Democrat > You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe > in economic fairness. > Weird, I used to always come up Libertarian on these things.. > MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to know where everyone stands on the Death > Match issue.

I said "no". From that point on, that’s all anyone would get done. I see the country in deadlock. Do you know how many people I’ve wanted to kill in my lifetime??? Put it this way, the highways would be virtually deserted if I were any good at it.

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote in news:Xns96E0A4C562975lrfakeaddrcom@ 68.1.17.6: > A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, > libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): > http://www.okcupid.com/politics > I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will > take again later to get the actual figures.

You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an… Economic Moderate (56% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist

Response:

LisatheSequel wrote in news:dhhm5s$hk7$1 @swifty.westend.com: > You are a Social Conservative (35% permissive) and an Economic Liberal > (21% permissive. > You are best described as a: Totalitarian

Would you agree with that? I wouldn’t have ever associated totalitarianism with you.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Lash Rambo wrote: > "meg" wrote in news:1128036489.926359.125530 > @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Lash Rambo wrote: > >> A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, > >> libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): > >> http://www.okcupid.com/politics > >> I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will > >> take again later to get the actual figures. > > You are a > > Social Moderate > > (50% permissive) > > and an… > > Economic Liberal > > (20% permissive) > > You are best described as a: > > Democrat > > You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe > > in economic fairness. > > Weird, I used to always come up Libertarian on these things.. > > MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to know where everyone stands on the Death > > Match issue. > I said "no," because I want there to be something on T.V. besides couples > killing each other. :D

It would eliminate parenting time issues for the divorced. It would be a public service!

Response:

5. Something like the theory of Natural Selection explains why some people are homeless. 24. It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel and fight a Death Match. 27. The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but unavoidable. 39. The life of one American is worth the lives of several foreigners. THESE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN, REAL LIBERTARIAN TALKING POINTS.

Response:

"Jim Winters" wrote in news:1128048725.338342.144300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Lash Rambo wrote: >> A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, >> libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): >> http://www.okcupid.com/politics >> I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will >> take again later to get the actual figures. >>From the test: > 5. Something like the theory of Natural Selection explains why some > people are homeless.

Economic conservatism. > 24. It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each > other to a duel and fight a Death Match.

Social liberalism. > 27. The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but > unavoidable.

Economic conservatism. > 39. The life of one American is worth the lives of several foreigners.

Social conservatism. > THESE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN, REAL LIBERTARIAN TALKING POINTS.

Are you saying it called you a liberal and you disagree?

Response:

I said disagree on that one because I don’t agree with what the author probably implied, that in some sense homeless people are gentically "weak". It’s maybe quite the opposite, that if someone can, without so much challenge, sit around, get resources from other people, and produce tons of kids that other people care for, that is genetically _fit_, baby. That’s a total Darwinian coup and like hitting the jackpot. I also to some extent think that Natural Selection explains everything. Including various human traits and the nature and range of genetic diversity in them. This is knowledge that most people don’t want to have. And I’m quite willing to consider that it may be the best thing _not_ to seek that kind of knowledge. > 24. It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each > other to a duel and fight a Death Match.

Of course it should! > 27. The fact that many people starve to death is unfortunate but > unavoidable.

I would think that it’s avoidable. It’s avoidable in the first world, anyway. > 39. The life of one American is worth the lives of several foreigners.

I’m not American, so that’s a no brain answer. Obviously I’m worth at least 82 Americans. > THESE ARE NOT, NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN, REAL LIBERTARIAN TALKING

POINTS.

Response:

I was in the middle of the bottom right square, near the socialist line. Strong Democrat, in the middle of the blue wave. And hell yes on the Death Match.

Response:

"meg" wrote in news:1128036489.926359.125530 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Lash Rambo wrote: >> A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, >> libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): >> http://www.okcupid.com/politics >> I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will >> take again later to get the actual figures. > You are a > Social Moderate > (50% permissive) > and an… > Economic Liberal > (20% permissive) > You are best described as a: > Democrat > You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe > in economic fairness. > Weird, I used to always come up Libertarian on these things.. > MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to know where everyone stands on the Death > Match issue.

I said "no," because I want there to be something on T.V. besides couples killing each other. :D

Response:

William P wrote: > "meg" wrote in news:1128036489.926359.125530 > @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Weird, I used to always come up Libertarian on these things.. > > MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to know where everyone stands on the Death > > Match issue. > Where do you stand on it, tough girl?

Around your height and twice as feisty. Bring it on.

Response:

You are a Social Moderate (50% permissive) and an… Economic Liberal (20% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. Weird, I used to always come up Libertarian on these things.. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to know where everyone stands on the Death Match issue.

Response:

"meg" wrote in news:1128036489.926359.125530 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Weird, I used to always come up Libertarian on these things.. > MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to know where everyone stands on the Death > Match issue.

Where do you stand on it, tough girl?

Response:

A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): http://www.okcupid.com/politics I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will take again later to get the actual figures.

Response:

You are a Social Conservative (35% permissive) and an Economic Liberal (21% permissive. You are best described as a: Totalitarian You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

Response:

You are a Social Liberal (73% permissive) and an… Economic Liberal (6% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. It’s left-wing extremists like me that are paralyzing the Democratic party and fucking the country over.

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote in news:Xns96E0A4C562975lrfakeaddrcom@68.1.17.6: > A quiz to determine your political alignment (republican, democrat, > libertarian, socialist, fascist, anarchist, etc.): > http://www.okcupid.com/politics > I lost my specific results, but remember it said I was a centrist. Will > take again later to get the actual figures.

You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (60% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. — I loved "Do you believe consenting adults should be able to challenge each other and fight in a death match?" I said "agree" on that one.

Response:

An observation

admin — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Kevin Rohleder wrote in message

news:3bc92123.946733342@news.speakeasy.net… > I picked up a magic 8-ball the other day. It said "Outlook Not So > Good". I said, "Sure, but Microsoft still ships it." > -k

*Shakes his head.* – Patrick Stewart

Response:

Hello T.S., (T.S.) writes >’ll pretend as if I never read it. Except for the last sentence. Hope you >don’t mind. Just from my own personal experience, I find it is often better >to look forward rather than backward. >T.S. (Marty) writes:

I’ve discovered that looking backward can be beneficial when I’m doing it for the purpose of learning something from the past. But when I find myself ruminating over some mistake or bad experience with no intention of using it for leverage then I’ve wasted time and energy that could have been put to much better use. Looking forward is energizing to me when I do it with an optimistic attitude. However, looking forward through a pessimistic lens can be quite frightening. For me, it’s all about attitude. Just my 2 farthings , Marty =============================================== Mistakes are made for learning and improving, not for repeating. — Denis Waitley ===============================================

Response:

On 13 Oct 2001 11:30:18 -0700, maddman…@yahoo.com (maddman) wrote: >Mike G wrote in message … >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:15:57 -0400, "lm" wrote: >> >I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. >> >Thanks. >> Let me guess… Outlook Express >Friends don’t let friends use microsoft

I picked up a magic 8-ball the other day. It said "Outlook Not So Good". I said, "Sure, but Microsoft still ships it." -k

Response:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:15:57 -0400, "lm" wrote: >I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. >Thanks.

Let me guess… Outlook Express — Mike

Response:

lm wrote: > I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. > Thanks.

If more people sent things here by mistake, it would liven up the ng. EM

Response:

Mike G wrote in message … > On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:15:57 -0400, "lm" wrote: > >I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. > >Thanks. > Let me guess… Outlook Express

Friends don’t let friends use microsoft

Response:

"lm" wrote: >I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. >Thanks.

Sorry, but I read it before I read this post telling me to ignore it. FWIW, I can identify with the sentiments expressed. ;-) — Bastian

Response:

"lm" wrote in article <#sO0q$9UBHA.2188@cpimsnntpa02>: > I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. > Thanks.

I’ll pretend as if I never read it. Except for the last sentence. Hope you don’t mind. Just from my own personal experience, I find it is often better to look forward rather than backward. T.S.

Response:

In the past when you and I talked on the phone, I would sometimes think afterward about what I should have said or not said, or about how I should have said something. These days, when something happens as I go about my business in the real world, I sometimes think about it in terms of whether you would be interested in hearing about it the next time we talk on the phone. It’s a nice change, looking forward rather than backward. Laura

Response:

I’d appreciate it if everyone ignored that. It was sent here by mistake. Thanks. lm

Response:

>Have you read this book? If not, I’d suggest you >shut up and leave it to the experts of which you >certainly don’t belong among…

I read about half of it. Knowing very little about the Jewish people, yet hearing "Jewish conspiracy!" all the time from American media, I was curious as to what all the fuss was about. It seemed the book was tailored for people who had already made up their mind about jews. It made a hell of a lot of assumptions (that jews are dishonest by nature etc) and would make wholly unscientific statements like "it is obvious that the jews are ". Coming from a rather neutral position about the Jewish faith (I don’t even know if I’ve even met any Jews) the book seemed a bit overblown and sinister, almost laughably so. It also assumed that everything associated with the "left" is evil and wholly destructive for society, which I don’t agree with. Of course if I’d read a number of pro-Jew books by various political and sociology experts you probably wouldn’t consider me informed, would you? >Start out with Viacom which owns MTV, it is >headed by the JEW Sumner Redstone..try showing me >how that’s an opinion????

It’s a fact that a lot of media corporations are owned by Jews, but it’s an opinion that their religion affects programming or that Jews are working in collusion.

Response:

Jim Winters wrote: > I was sitting 50 feet away from him tonight while he gave a speech. He > came off as very arrogant and hate-filled. He called Christopher > Hitchens "rancid and foul". I’ll bet Hitchens doesn’t use that type of > invective against Galloway behind HIS back.

Hitchens is a pretty nasty piece of work too. Try reading some of his stuff – if you can stomach it. He’s also a nutty bonkers conspiracy theorist who thinks the Devil lives in Hampstead and rules Europe. MC

Response:

>An observation

by "Jim Winters" Sep 16, 2005 at 06:51 PM >George Galloway deserves to be raped.

I have a better observation, Jim Winters is a Jew-Lover and deserves to be raped. Apparently he thinks it is cool if Jews destroy the White race with multiculturalism and Feminist poison. Simon Weaselthal was a Commie pig and only a little uninformed PUKE like you who has never studied the Jewish question would admire someone like that. Try getting informed: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0759672229/qid=11272641… Either get informed or shut the fuck up. I’m sick and tired of you little nothings who haven’t read a single book about Jewish power and yet you sit there and play the fake "expert"..you prove to me that you’ve studied the issue or take a fucking seat next to the other idiotic little girls…

Response:

>Either get informed or shut the fuck up. I’m sick >and tired of you little nothings who haven’t read a >single book about Jewish power and yet you sit >there and play the fake "expert"

That’s the problem with buying into a conspiracy theory so absolutely… there’s no such thing as a difference of opinion. It’s either "enlightened" or "brainwashed".

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -JimSummers wrote: > >An observation > by "Jim Winters" Sep 16, 2005 at 06:51 > PM > >George Galloway deserves to be raped. > I have a better observation, Jim Winters is a Jew-Lover and deserves to > be raped. Apparently he thinks it is cool if Jews destroy the White race > with multiculturalism and Feminist poison. Simon Weaselthal was a Commie > pig and only a little uninformed PUKE like you who has never studied the > Jewish question would admire someone like that. > Try getting informed:

Thanks, but I’ve already read C of C. I’ve also read "The Turner Diaries" and Norman Finkelstein’s "The Holocaust Industry". In my senior year of highschool, this was pretty much the only sort of non-fiction I was interested in. I found none of it convincing in the slightest. The essence of your argument seems to be this: Some Jews, who were elected to positions of power within the US government by legal, ethical and democratic means, with the aid of some of their non-Jewish peers, pass laws which result in America becoming less monocultural. Therefore all American Jews deserve to be deported or worse. I think you and I are communicating across some sort of million-mile-wide ethical gap. Have a nice day. I will pray to Cthulhu for your enlightenment and ultimate salvation.

Response:

>Have a nice day. I will pray to Cthulhu for your >enlightenment and ultimate salvation.

Cthulhu cares not for your prayers. He will eat you or perhaps drive you mad for his own amusement.

Response:

JimSummers wrote: > >An observation > by "Jim Winters" Sep 16, 2005 at 06:51 > PM > >George Galloway deserves to be raped. > I have a better observation, Jim Winters is a Jew-Lover and deserves to > be raped. Apparently he thinks it is cool if Jews destroy the White race > with multiculturalism and Feminist poison.

Well, can you really blame him for knowing a good idea when he sees it?

Response:

>That’s the problem with buying into a conspiracy theory so

absolutely…there’s no such thing as a difference of opinion. It’s either >"enlightened" or "brainwashed".

No Research= No knowledge, drop the phony act, none of you have studied the issue AT ALL, you simply went with what the media said because you just didn’t care. Being lazy and self absorbed is NOT RESEARCH…. Have you read this book? If not, I’d suggest you shut up and leave it to the experts of which you certainly don’t belong among… http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0759672229/qid=11273318… By the way, your "opinion" nonsense is also full of holes, there is no "opinion" on whether a company is Jew controlled or not, IT EITHER IS OR ISN’T…These are not "opinions" but absolute FACTS…. Start out with Viacom which owns MTV, it is headed by the JEW Sumner Redstone..try showing me how that’s an opinion????

Response:

JimSummers wrote: > Start out with Viacom which owns MTV, it is headed by the JEW Sumner > Redstone..try showing me how that’s an opinion????

How is this relevant? Sure, MTV is annoying, but not as annoying as you are.

Response:

>The essence of your argument seems to be this: Some Jews, who were elected

to positions of power within the US government by legal, ethical and democratic means, with the aid of some of their non-Jewish peers, pass laws which result in America becoming less monocultural.Therefore all >American Jews deserve to be deported or worse.

More than just "some" Jews, more like the most powerful Jewish organizations in the world such as the ADL and B’nai Brith. Also, Jews are only 3% of the U.S. population but they comprised 50% of the membership to the American Communist Party from 1920-1955….the goal of the Communist Party was always to destroy White unity and Christianity which is of course why Jews were so interested in becoming involved in Communism. You do know that Karl Marx was a Jew? So was Trotsky? Kamenev? Zinoviev? Radek? Kaganovich? Yagoda? Rosa Luxembourg? Kurt Eisner? Bela Kun? Eugene Levine? Anna Pauker? I wouldn’t call it "some" Jews, I call it a vast majority of them.. My sister has a Jewish friend and this woman is a major COMMIE and FEMINIST just like most of them…my uncle’s Jewish wife has the same Far-Left Wing politics as well… If you knew anything about the History of Jews in Russia you would know that the Jews there became Marxists after 1880 and brought that destructive ideology here to America to ruin our way of life. Try reading the 1951 classic "Iron Curtain Over America" about the Jewish/Communist plot to destroy White America. http://www.stormfront.org/iron_curtain/contents.html I suspect that your REAL MOTIVE for defending the Jews is one of those typically selfish feminine reasons such as "Oh but I had a Jewish friend in High School"….typical feminine narcissistic behavior…

Response:

JimSummers wrote: > More than just "some" Jews, more like the most powerful Jewish > organizations in the world such as the ADL and B’nai Brith. Also, Jews are > only 3% of the U.S. population but they comprised 50% of the membership to > the American Communist Party from 1920-1955….

Here’s a quick lesson in statistics for you. Super-heavy pot smokers are only 1% of the Canadian population. but they comprise 80% of the membership of my band. Does that mean the vast majority of Canadian pot smokers have been members of my band? > You do know that Karl Marx was a Jew? So was Trotsky? Kamenev? > Zinoviev? Radek? Kaganovich? Yagoda? Rosa Luxembourg? Kurt Eisner? Bela > Kun? Eugene Levine? Anna Pauker?

Geddy Lee? Lou Reed? Mark Knopfler? Joey Ramone? Gene Simmons? I wish you nazis would stop trying to ram the Soviet Union down my throat. It was in the past. Get over it. Jews have made my life better. You haven’t. Please go gas yourself. > I suspect that your REAL MOTIVE for defending the Jews is one of those > typically selfish feminine reasons such as "Oh but I had a Jewish friend > in High School"….typical feminine narcissistic behavior…

No, it’s because I am a man of principle, a concept you don’t seem to be too familiar with. Also, Gene Simmons and Geddy Lee happen to be my two favorite bassists.

Response:

August Pamplona wrote in news:3p1h2uF8824tU1@individual.net: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Jim Winters wrote: >> Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote: >>>"Jim Winters" wrote in >>>news:1126921897.127176.296490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>>>George Galloway deserves to be raped. >>>I thought his performance at the U.S. Senate was hilarious. Can’t >>>say the guy doesn’t know how to give a great performance. Other than >>>that, I don’t know much about him. He was right about the war, >>>though. >> I was sitting 50 feet away from him tonight while he gave a speech. >> He came off as very arrogant and hate-filled. He called Christopher >> Hitchens "rancid and foul". I’ll bet Hitchens doesn’t use that type >> of invective against Galloway behind HIS back.

No, he uses it in print–I think I saw it on Slate.com. They’re going to have a debate or had one this month. Hitchens still supports "democracy" in Iraq. Frankly I think Hitchens will say nearly anything to get attention. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> He said it was wrong for Carter and Reagan to support Islamic >> militants in Afghanistan because it led indirectly to the creation of >> the Taliban. It also led, more directly, to the collapse of the >> Soviet > Communism did that all by itself. The funding and promotion > of > militant Islam may (or may not) have accelerated the process. Remember > this was done (unofficially under Carter at the end of his term) at a > time when we were already dealing with Islamic fundies in Iran (that > little episode with the hostages at the embassy in Tehran). It’s just > that the powers that be in all of their wisdom decided that the > fundies that we were funding in Afghanistan through Pakistan’s > Intelligence services were different sorts of fundies who’d never > cause any trouble for us.

It began under Carter but continued under Reagan if not expanded, and the most money went to the most extreme islamists. > > Union and the end of the cold war, but Galloway didn’t mention that >> because it didn’t serve his anti-American agenda. >> I’ll say this for him, he knew how to engage his audience. But so do >> Bush and Blair, when the time is right. > August Pamplona

– "You tried to scan me, you freaked-out maniac." –TV’s Frank.

Response:

George Galloway deserves to be raped.

Response:

"Jim Winters" wrote in news:1126921897.127176.296490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > George Galloway deserves to be raped.

I thought his performance at the U.S. Senate was hilarious. Can’t say the guy doesn’t know how to give a great performance. Other than that, I don’t know much about him. He was right about the war, though. — "You tried to scan me, you freaked-out maniac." –TV’s Frank.

Response:

Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote: > "Jim Winters" wrote in > news:1126921897.127176.296490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > George Galloway deserves to be raped. > I thought his performance at the U.S. Senate was hilarious. Can’t say the > guy doesn’t know how to give a great performance. Other than that, I don’t > know much about him. He was right about the war, though.

I was sitting 50 feet away from him tonight while he gave a speech. He came off as very arrogant and hate-filled. He called Christopher Hitchens "rancid and foul". I’ll bet Hitchens doesn’t use that type of invective against Galloway behind HIS back. He said it was wrong for Carter and Reagan to support Islamic militants in Afghanistan because it led indirectly to the creation of the Taliban. It also led, more directly, to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, but Galloway didn’t mention that because it didn’t serve his anti-American agenda. I’ll say this for him, he knew how to engage his audience. But so do Bush and Blair, when the time is right.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jim Winters wrote: > Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote: >>"Jim Winters" wrote in >>news:1126921897.127176.296490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>>George Galloway deserves to be raped. >>I thought his performance at the U.S. Senate was hilarious. Can’t say the >>guy doesn’t know how to give a great performance. Other than that, I don’t >>know much about him. He was right about the war, though. > I was sitting 50 feet away from him tonight while he gave a speech. He > came off as very arrogant and hate-filled. He called Christopher > Hitchens "rancid and foul". I’ll bet Hitchens doesn’t use that type of > invective against Galloway behind HIS back. > He said it was wrong for Carter and Reagan to support Islamic militants > in Afghanistan because it led indirectly to the creation of the > Taliban. It also led, more directly, to the collapse of the Soviet

Communism did that all by itself. The funding and promotion of militant Islam may (or may not) have accelerated the process. Remember this was done (unofficially under Carter at the end of his term) at a time when we were already dealing with Islamic fundies in Iran (that little episode with the hostages at the embassy in Tehran). It’s just that the powers that be in all of their wisdom decided that the fundies that we were funding in Afghanistan through Pakistan’s Intelligence services were different sorts of fundies who’d never cause any trouble for us. > Union and the end of the cold war, but Galloway didn’t mention that > because it didn’t serve his anti-American agenda. > I’ll say this for him, he knew how to engage his audience. But so do > Bush and Blair, when the time is right.

August Pamplona — Women bring men they like tasks in much the same way cats put dead mice on their owner’s pillows. – Lola on a.s.s. a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut Proud member of the reality-based community. The address in this message’s ‘From’ field, in accordance with individual.net’s TOS, is real. However, almost all messages reaching this address are deleted without human intervention. In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message. To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me, make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Response:

The Communist Holocaust Museum

admin — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – An idea whose time has come: The Communist Holocaust Museum Mike S. Adams September 12, 2005 Dear fellow capitalist: Thank you for your email, professor. I understand the distress you must feel after a couple of recent (and very bad) hires in your department. I know you are concerned now that there are three Marxist professors in your department when, just a year ago, there was only one. —-snip—- Marxists, communists and liberals thump their bible with the same energy and belief as christians, jews, hindus and other religious ‘bibles’. They cannot deviate from doctrine or will be considered heretics.

You are talking about conservatives!

Response:

An idea whose time has come: The Communist Holocaust Museum Actually, a fine idea. Atrocities committed by communists make the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch burnings, Hitler and his death camps, the massacre of the Tutsis, and the US slave trade, all rolled into one, pale in comparison.

Agreed.

Response:

An idea whose time has come: The Communist Holocaust Museum Mike S. Adams September 12, 2005 Oh, absolutely! Marxist TV tells stale 20-year old jokes making fun of real Americans. That’s how you can tell it is Marxist TV.

Response:

An idea whose time has come: The Communist Holocaust Museum Mike S. Adams September 12, 2005 Dear fellow capitalist: Thank you for your email, professor. I understand the distress you must feel after a couple of recent (and very bad) hires in your department. I know you are concerned now that there are three Marxist professors in your department when, just a year ago, there was only one. Of course, having a token Marxist professor in your department can be fun. As you know, Marxist professors invariably say stupid things. For the "imbedded" conservative columnist (like me) they can provide a lot of fodder for columns and, of course, a lot of laughs. As I write this letter, I am thinking back to a conversation with one such Marxist. The Office of the Dean of Students had just caught one of my students fabricating a rape story just to get out of taking an exam. The student had falsely claimed that her sister had been raped and nearly killed. She wept uncontrollably, even after the hoax was exposed. I was in the midst of arguing for expulsion of the lying student – under the university’s seldom utilized Honor Code – when the Marxist feminist entered the room and, shortly thereafter, the conversation. I thought she would agree that lying about rape for personal gain was serious business not to be simply ignored. Instead, the Marxist feminist disagreed with everything I said. She even disagreed with my assertion that another student (who fabricated her own rape story just to get out of an exam) should be expelled. And she disagreed that a woman who falsely accused one of my male students of rape (he was even arrested and interrogated) should be expelled. And, finally, she disagreed with my assertion that a professor who made up a charge of sexual harassment against her chair should at least be censured, if not fired. Such episodes have taught me that arguing with a Marxist is similar to arguing with an alcoholic who just ran out of liquor. The conversations seldom go anywhere, and the Marxist, just like the drunk, rarely concedes a point. The similarity is unsurprising since Marxism and alcoholism are both diseases rooted in emotional, spiritual, and intellectual weakness. I have also noticed that the Marxist unwittingly reveals the central danger of the communist agenda by this unwillingness to concede even the most obvious of points. It seems to me that the Marxist recognizes that communism is an end which can only be achieved by rigid adherence to identity politics and total disregard for any transcendent principle. So, one can always expect the communist to suppress a truth and promulgate a lie in defense of a comrade. Any feigned interest in truth or enduring principle will last only as long as is necessary to inflict injury upon a political opponent. That is ultimately why the communist chooses to hold himself to the lowest possible standard of conduct. And that, in part, explains why the communists murdered 100 million innocents in just 72 years. Those who understand the agenda of campus communists are justifiably tempted to engage in censorship as a means of eradicating those who espouse a political agenda with such a murderous past. But censorship is wrong and can even harm the battle against those who seek to revive the communist agenda on our nation’s campuses. Mill was right when he said that the danger of censorship is two-fold: First, there is the danger that censorship will suppress the truth. Second, there is the danger that censorship will rob us of a greater understanding of the truth via its juxtaposition with falsity. So, that is why I write back to you today requesting help with a project I first proposed in a speech on Capitol Hill in July (and again at North Carolina State University in August). It involves the establishment of the first National Communist Holocaust Museum on the campus of one of our nation’s public universities. It will not be difficult to raise several million dollars to fund this bold new initiative. The generosity and patriotism of Americans will see to that. The real difficulty will be finding a public university that will allow such a museum to be constructed in the face of staunch opposition from socialist professors. Take a moment to imagine the impact of such a museum. The atrocities of Stalin could be outlined in the Stalin Room. The atrocities of Mao could be displayed in the Mao Room, and the atrocities of Pol Pot could be shown in the Pol Pot Room. Each room could feature a burning candle for every 1 million innocents murdered by the dictator after which the room is named. Just imagine the possibilities. And imagine how difficult it would be to teach communism on a campus with such a museum standing as a guardian of truth, justice, and individual liberty. But, of course, resistance to the truth will be great. Ultimately, whether such a museum is ever established will depend on the relative pressure that communists and anti-communists apply to college administrators. At the very least, we must begin to ask public university administrators to work with us as we seek to weaken communism by exposing its horrors, rather than by suppressing its advocates. Soon, we will find out which college administrators are with us, and which ones are against us. As for the former, a golden opportunity lies ahead. As for the latter, they, too, will be exposed. To be continued. Mike S. Adams will be speaking at Ohio University and the University of Florida in the upcoming weeks. Log on to http://www.DrAdams.org for more details.

Eye contact help

admin — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 In article <43226352$0$6669$626a1…@news.free.fr> "F?ank" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - wrote: >I’m also becoming aware right now that this problem mainly happens with >my female friend. She has really beautiful blue eyes. I don’t know, >maybe sometimes I need to study them. And although I wouldn’t want to >make Babs mad by hijacking one more thread with a submission/dominance >debate, I have to say that there is a difference between looking and >being looked at. And to make it short (at 6am I should already be in >bed), I think that my problem may not be whether I look at both eyes or >just one. It may be that when I realize that I’m looking at one >particular eye, I’m just realizing that I’m actually *looking* at the >person, not being looked at. And of course, I feel guilty for that, and >I would like to go back to a submissive position, I mean, like I had >been caught staring at her boobs and I wanted to apologize for it. So >basically when I feel that looking at one eye in particular is "too >intense", it might just mean that I feel guilty for stripping the >person, looking at her body (the eye as an organ), not just looking at >her look.

Ah, guilt over the "male gaze"? Thank you Fr@nk, this describes my remaining difficulties with holding eye contact pretty well. Do you ever find that you "need" to break eye contact because things have now gone far enough? At some point push comes to shove, and one must choose whether to run game or eject. When, as in 99.97% of cases, due to my overly high standards, I don’t find the girl particularly attractive, I "eject" because I perceive a (false?) dichotomy of options: take a "base" (a kiss?), or reject the girl. Your introduction of the male gaze shows an opportunity to reframe: it could be perfectly okay to *keep* gazing, just surveying and receiving all the photons you like; it is perhaps even what she wants – to be the *object* of your gaze (despite "feminist" whining) – to be looked *at*. >The fact that when it happens, I usually solve the problem by looking >down for a moment is probably quite telling. i.e. assuming a submissive >posture : I’m sorry, I really didn’t want to strip you like I did.

Yes, the consensus seems to be that looking down is a "submissive" gesture. Can you try breaking to the side, or even to above, as if to dismiss her and her possible feminazi weltanschauung, almost as if rolling your eyes? >So basically I think the solution to that is to just focus more on what >the person is saying. Then you’re just looking at her/his ideas, and >the akward-ness is gone.

I have found the inverse to be quite workable too: in small-talk situations people might not even notice that you’re concentrating 100% on their gestures (and features) and 0% on their verbal discourse. Just remember to toss in the occasional appropriately timed "ah-hah". – — There is a lot of food in a supermarket, too, but a supermarket isn’t the best place to hold a dinner party. — Christopher Faylor —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ Comment: My current keys will expire in a month, please ask for ID checks now. iD8DBQFDJYHJ/FmLrNfLpjMRAnClAJ9ugrxxqYp2EUyo6zDRWDao6Hl7FACglCfs dUKbEOVICadZefH2ZRGj4Xo= =KZzK —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

William P wrote in news:Xns96CB97A26E202willdotpsympaticodot@207.35.177.134: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Lash Rambo wrote in > news:Xns96CB8C8763CF7lrfakeaddrcom@ 68.1.17.6: >> "The Babaloughesian" wrote >> in news:1126193317.481097.284760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>> Don’t focus on an individual eye. Focus on the area between their >>> eyes and use your peripheral vision to expand you field of view >>> sideways in both directions. >> Yeah, diverge your eyes. Practice on those Magic Eye things, where >> you have to diverge your eyes to see the 3D picture. > Yeah! Focus until you perceive that she has three eyes and > concentrate on the central one. See if you can get set yourself up a > stereogram like that, too.

I can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but that’s pretty much what I had in mind! If I have to make extended eye contact (such as during a job interview), I’ll start doing that. > Seriously I can’t tell if the original post is a fairly interesting > question or just a pretty clever unusual troll.

I can’t say for sure either, but it’s a legitimate concern. The whole reason I know my wife switches eyes is because she brought the concern up one time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Alternatively, you could do what my wife says she does, which is >> switch from looking at one eye to the other every few seconds.

Response:

In news:1126202697.443703.149430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, brianlann…@gmail.com wrote : > You’re trying too hard. Eye contact is really more like face contact. > You should be trying to get their entire face into your field of view > so that you can see and interpret facial expressions. > One thing that I’ve seen some people do to me that is annoying is that > it seems like they’re constantly switching between looking at each of > my eyes. It looks really odd. If you’re looking at one, no one can > tell what you’re looking at specifically. But if you switch back and > forth, people can see the disparity and it looks sort of wrong, maybe > too intense.

I’ve noticed that actors constantly do that when they want to fake intensity. Must be an Actor’s Studio thing. > Another thing is that you don’t need to stare at someone’s eyes. Good > eye contact means that you’re not hesitating to look into their eyes. > But it doesn’t mean that you can’t look away. In fact, I think you > should look away from time to time. Staring into people’s eyes for > long periods of time is either a sign of aggression or a romantic > thing. Both of which could make people uncomfortable.

Yeah.

Response:

In news:1126192348.359919.263410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, tad4…@hotmail.com wrote : > My problem might be difficult to understand and is hard for me to > explain but it has affected me for years and its getting to the point > where its driving me crazy. I am not shy when it comes to looking > someone in the eyes, my problem is i dont know which eye to look at > when speaking to someone. I find when someone is talking to me they > are trying to adjust to where i am looking and i can see them looking > away from me uncomfortably. I dont know if im explaing this right to > break it down more simple, if humans just had one eye it would be easy > because i would use my eye to look into there one eye. But humans > have > 2. if im looking head on with a person should i be focusing on a > certain eye (for example, there right or left, if there head is to the > side the eye closest) My problem is determing which way to shift my > focus. any information would be greatly appreciated

I used to have huge problems with eye-contact but it’s better now. Recently I faced the same problem (right or left eye), though I did not really care. I mean, who cares?? Like "there’s this guy, he never looks at my left eye!!! This is so insulting!! What does he want to say? That my left eye is ugly?!?". But I noticed that I notice that, only when I become too self-conscious. When I’m not self-conscious, I just don’t care at all (I’m not even aware at which eye I’m looking at, if I’m not looking at both). When I become self-conscious about that, yeah, I feel like I’m too intense, that the person will notice that I’m staring at one eye, like I was studying it like an object. So I look away for a moment, and then I look at the other eye, until I forget it, and manage to get rid of that self-consciousness (there are so many other things to worry about!). Sometimes I also try to look at both eyes at the same time. I’m also becoming aware right now that this problem mainly happens with my female friend. She has really beautiful blue eyes. I don’t know, maybe sometimes I need to study them. And although I wouldn’t want to make Babs mad by hijacking one more thread with a submission/dominance debate, I have to say that there is a difference between looking and being looked at. And to make it short (at 6am I should already be in bed), I think that my problem may not be whether I look at both eyes or just one. It may be that when I realize that I’m looking at one particular eye, I’m just realizing that I’m actually *looking* at the person, not being looked at. And of course, I feel guilty for that, and I would like to go back to a submissive position, I mean, like I had been caught staring at her boobs and I wanted to apologize for it. So basically when I feel that looking at one eye in particular is "too intense", it might just mean that I feel guilty for stripping the person, looking at her body (the eye as an organ), not just looking at her look. The fact that when it happens, I usually solve the problem by looking down for a moment is probably quite telling. i.e. assuming a submissive posture : I’m sorry, I really didn’t want to strip you like I did. So basically I think the solution to that is to just focus more on what the person is saying. Then you’re just looking at her/his ideas, and the akward-ness is gone.

Response:

My problem might be difficult to understand and is hard for me to explain but it has affected me for years and its getting to the point where its driving me crazy. I am not shy when it comes to looking someone in the eyes, my problem is i dont know which eye to look at when speaking to someone. I find when someone is talking to me they are trying to adjust to where i am looking and i can see them looking away from me uncomfortably. I dont know if im explaing this right to break it down more simple, if humans just had one eye it would be easy because i would use my eye to look into there one eye. But humans have 2. if im looking head on with a person should i be focusing on a certain eye (for example, there right or left, if there head is to the side the eye closest) My problem is determing which way to shift my focus. any information would be greatly appreciated

Response:

Don’t focus on an individual eye. Focus on the area between their eyes and use your peripheral vision to expand you field of view sideways in both directions.

Response:

if tried that and it doesnt feel natural, i feel peoples eyes automatically adjust to which eye to look at whereas i’m trying to do it manually and its confusing me. should i be using my left eye to look at their left eye or right to their right? or should i be using both eyes to be focusing on one of theirs? thanks for your help

Response:

"tad4…@hotmail.com" wrote: > My problem might be difficult to understand and is hard for me to > explain but it has affected me for years and its getting to the point > where its driving me crazy. I am not shy when it comes to looking > someone in the eyes, my problem is i dont know which eye to look at > when speaking to someone….

I tend to go for the eye on the right (their left eye), perhaps because I’m right handed.

Response:

It might be that your making the wrong kind of eye contact. Are you staring in their eyes for a long period of time? If so you should make eye contact only at the moments that the person is trying to get their point accross or wanting you to listen to them because when you make eye contact it shows you are taking an interest in what the person is "saying" and not their eyes. And which eye to look into? That is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Response:

"The Babaloughesian" wrote in news:1126193317.481097.284760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Don’t focus on an individual eye. Focus on the area between their eyes > and use your peripheral vision to expand you field of view sideways in > both directions.

Yeah, diverge your eyes. Practice on those Magic Eye things, where you have to diverge your eyes to see the 3D picture. Alternatively, you could do what my wife says she does, which is switch from looking at one eye to the other every few seconds.

Response:

You’re trying too hard. Eye contact is really more like face contact. You should be trying to get their entire face into your field of view so that you can see and interpret facial expressions. One thing that I’ve seen some people do to me that is annoying is that it seems like they’re constantly switching between looking at each of my eyes. It looks really odd. If you’re looking at one, no one can tell what you’re looking at specifically. But if you switch back and forth, people can see the disparity and it looks sort of wrong, maybe too intense. Another thing is that you don’t need to stare at someone’s eyes. Good eye contact means that you’re not hesitating to look into their eyes. But it doesn’t mean that you can’t look away. In fact, I think you should look away from time to time. Staring into people’s eyes for long periods of time is either a sign of aggression or a romantic thing. Both of which could make people uncomfortable. brian

Response:

Lash Rambo wrote in news:Xns96CB8C8763CF7lrfakeaddrcom@ 68.1.17.6: > "The Babaloughesian" wrote in > news:1126193317.481097.284760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> Don’t focus on an individual eye. Focus on the area between their eyes >> and use your peripheral vision to expand you field of view sideways in >> both directions. > Yeah, diverge your eyes. Practice on those Magic Eye things, where you > have to diverge your eyes to see the 3D picture.

Yeah! Focus until you perceive that she has three eyes and concentrate on the central one. See if you can get set yourself up a stereogram like that, too. Seriously I can’t tell if the original post is a fairly interesting question or just a pretty clever unusual troll. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Alternatively, you could do what my wife says she does, which is switch > from looking at one eye to the other every few seconds.

Response:

tad4…@hotmail.com wrote: > if tried that and it doesnt feel natural, i feel peoples eyes > automatically adjust to which eye to look at whereas i’m trying to do > it manually and its confusing me. should i be using my left eye to > look at their left eye or right to their right? or should i be using > both eyes to be focusing on one of theirs? thanks for your help

Why don’t you just watch some other people talking and see what they do with their eyes? – Michaela, but I never read the OP so don’t mind me…