Thoughts
Ilya Shambat
lot of good. They tend to be petty, devitalized, nasty and
unfulfilled. This is what I have seen especially of the Generation X,
who made humility as revolt against the arrogance of their parents
their guiding belief structure. Men who are naturally arrogant but get
indoctrinated with the belief in humility go around finding the spirit
of others and dragging it down. Unfulfilled in their own propensities,
they become abusers. I am not going to wind up like them. I am going
to stay arrogant and use my arrogance to lift the spirits of people
who need it.
I find that the people who look for happiness generally don't find it.
They project the responsibility for happiness onto something other
than themselves and make themselves into leeches. People who look to
give happiness create populations of people who are dependent on them
or, worse, abuse them. I've been on both sides of this. And yet the
belief that everyone is responsible for their own happiness created
another malignancy: a culture of people who pretend to be happy in
order to not be condemned or considered inadequate individuals.
Meanwhile, wounds fester underneath the facade. Is happiness a
mistaken pursuit? Russians seem to think so, and yet when I am unhappy
the woman I love feels betrayed. She has managed to be giving and
optimistic in the most horrible of situations, yet even she has been
destroyed and required assistance. People who work on a project
generally don't get distracted by emotions, but the idea that this is
the case led to destructive workaholism of 1990s that left a
population of fat and miserable people who have no relationships at
all and spend all their free time watching TV. This is not a
prescription for any kind of good either. Freud said that the healthy
person must be able to love and to work. There's a catch - a correct
kind of work an a correct kind of love. Most of today's working women
aren't happy, they are more miserable than 50s housewives. That is
because they don't have jobs that are fulfilling, and having destroyed
their gentleness and femininity they cannot get love and attack love
if it ever finds them. So leave them to their choices, I'll be with a
feminine woman who makes me happy as I make her happy. The
prescription for everyone's happiness is man and woman making each
other happy in a relationship even as they make themselves and others
happy by doing socially productive work.
The idea that you reap what you sow is simply untrue. Lots of people,
especially women, give love and compassion and get back only abuse. I
generally get better response when I am nice than when I am mean; yet
even when I am nice, as I am on alt.romance, I get attacked.
Considering the things I've done in my life that is probably merited,
but my concern is for the fact that this belief is simply untrue for
many people, and in the hope of getting good results they do good to
others and get worn down, leeched out, abused and broken. Every Jesus
has a Judas, for a simple reason. Man has free will, and he will do
evil if he chooses even if you choose to do good. You reap what you
sow if the other person chooses to give you back what you sow. The
impetus to do good has to be guarded against another person's choice
to do evil.
It is of course true that people should take responsibility for their
lives, but many may need help before they can get to that point
mentally. Most people don't understand themselves. Many have bad
ideologies clouding their heads. Many don't feel they have any power
whatsoever due to being disadvantaged. But there is a malignancy:
people feel that way in the ghetto, where the median income is $15000,
and not in China, where it is $600. So then the poverty is inside
people's heads, a mentality that they have to change before things can
improve for them. And yet yelling at them to do that won't change a
thing. One has to reach out with compassion and one has to tell the
facts at the same time.
Jim Morrison said, "Girl you gotta love your man." The baby boomer
women loved their men and got abused in return. When one goes with
emotions, what one lives is one's animal nature. It is natural for the
woman to give; it is natural for the man to self-assert, and if
someone gives to him then he may see it as an imposition against his
free will and fight it. So nature must not be the only thing in the
equation, but it can't be left out of the equation the way the Xers or
WWII people did either or else people turn cruel and devitalized.
Women go through their lives looking for love, and they find
themselves only abused and betrayed. One has to have the courage to
give this love, that has been withheld from them, so that they can
stop this pursuit and live. I want other men to do this, it is the
only prescription for healthy society.
So there is a method. The method is this. See the person. Give
unconditional acceptance. Tell them what you require and stop them
every time they do evil. And then watch them blossom before your eyes.
Leonardo Dasso
"Ilya Shambat" <isha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d02408fc.02103...@posting.google.com...
>Many have bad
> ideologies clouding their heads. Many don't feel they have any power
> whatsoever due to being disadvantaged. But there is a malignancy:
> people feel that way in the ghetto, where the median income is $15000,
> and not in China, where it is $600. So then the poverty is inside
> people's heads, a mentality that they have to change before things can
> improve for them.
Maybe the fact that in China the electricity bill is $0.85/month has
something to do with it and not all is inside people's heads.
regards
leo
DaKitty
> unconditional acceptance. Tell them what you require and stop them
> every time they do evil. And then watch them blossom before your eyes.
in other words, discipline, tough love and positive reinforcement.
Miguel Arigno
Ilya Shambat wrote in message ...
>I find that the people who are into humility don't really do a whole
>lot of good. They tend to be petty, devitalized, nasty and
>unfulfilled. This is what I have seen especially of the Generation X,
>who made humility as revolt against the arrogance of their parents
>their guiding belief structure. Men who are naturally arrogant but get
>indoctrinated with the belief in humility go around finding the spirit
>of others and dragging it down. Unfulfilled in their own propensities,
>they become abusers. I am not going to wind up like them. I am going
>to stay arrogant and use my arrogance to lift the spirits of people
>who need it.
>
I like this part very much: I have been very bitter and bashing without
realizing I was. You describe the thing pretty well, and being OT, Nietzsche
would say that humility can be a sickness and denial of life if taken too
far.
Now I don´t bash people so much, I try to make my criticism constructive
and not a display of my bitter wits. I live better, I do more things, I
love more freely. But I tell you: there is still a pleasure in the
occasional flaming-slandering :-)
>Freud said that the healthy
>person must be able to love and to work. There's a catch - a correct
>kind of work an a correct kind of love. Most of today's working women
>aren't happy, they are more miserable than 50s housewives. That is
>because they don't have jobs that are fulfilling, and having destroyed
>their gentleness and femininity they cannot get love and attack love
>if it ever finds them. So leave them to their choices, I'll be with a
>feminine woman who makes me happy as I make her happy.
There are so many people that would say this part of the post is sexist.
Why? OK, ask them not me :-) I believe that it is true: leave people to
their choices. I see your choice as perfectly reasonable.
Me, I would rather find someone independant, but hey, that´s the good thing:
we are all different :-)
offallold
> lot of good. They tend to be petty, devitalized, nasty and
> unfulfilled. This is what I have seen especially of the Generation X,
> who made humility as revolt against the arrogance of their parents
> their guiding belief structure. Men who are naturally arrogant but get
> indoctrinated with the belief in humility go around finding the spirit
> of others and dragging it down. Unfulfilled in their own propensities,
> they become abusers. I am not going to wind up like them. I am going
> to stay arrogant and use my arrogance to lift the spirits of people
> who need it.
godhead of arrogance? Is it black and white with you? id,ego,id,ego. ebb and
flow. "Will to Heal" heh heh, ha hah heh ahh haahahhaaa. Ahem, you keep
posting, this is going to be fun.
>
<SNIP>
Beware of people who say "They" alot. They generally aren't even cognizant
when they are talking about themselves.
Celestial
wrote:
Hmmmm, I wote a post in reply to someone titled "hijacked grand
narratives" author--soupy, changed my name to celestial subsequently.
I used 4 "theys" in the last paragraph citing how the arguments
"they" made would have had to incorporate this and that to be
something more compelling than simple bigotry.
I am very cautious of projections, in this case no other words could
have been subsitituted and I was not speaking of myself, anymore than
you using the word "you" to Ilya was meant to reference to yourself
and was misapplied.
Jim Ledford
<SNIP>
> Beware of people who say "They" alot. They generally aren't even cognizant
> when they are talking about themselves.
would three uses of the word they be enough to warrant a
cognizant heightened awareness?
offallold
"Celestial" <sa...@wrapco.com> wrote in message
news:3d4b565d.32377313@news...
, the generalizations in the paragraph I responded to speak for themselves.
Discarding all humility because "they" who are "into" humility is a
shortsighted (imho) statement made from a bad (imo) premise. Also, you will
note that I asked two questions. I did not make an assertion of how he felt
like you just did. He has the opportunity to respond if he wishes. Have a
nice day.
Celestial
wrote:
OK, I just jumped in here because I noticed that in a post I had just
sent before this one I had used 4 theys in one paragraph, I don't
usually do that but I couldn't get around it.
>Discarding all humility because "they" who are "into" humility is a
>shortsighted (imho) statement made from a bad (imo) premise. Also, you will
>note that I asked two questions. I did not make an assertion of how he felt
>like you just did. He has the opportunity to respond if he wishes. Have a
>nice day.
>
Mmmmm, er I ain't defending him. I jump into some of these posts
occassionally when I see something I want to respond to. Usually it is
someone talking *to* Ilya.
As for his posts, I pretty much agree with you on that one statement,
also I notice he does this a lot. Much of his writing cuts divisions
between people where he can find them. Sometimes it is religious
people-Christians, Hindu, Islam, or abusive men or fat women, Gen Xers
and Baby Boomers. San Fransisco to the Midwest, capitalism v
communism Post Modernism v Romantics. From time to time his position
about each of these groups change. At any time it seems he could be
for or against it.
IN other words his own archives on Google may be the best argument
against what he states now. For this reason, I find little purpose
to argue, what will be said to be the answer and true today will be
different tomorrow.
In one post yay many moons ago he was against tribalsim, well that is
setting divisions against people
What I find interesting is that the divisions exist as they did and
were developed as much as they were many moons ago. Just different
targets of criticisms are shown---pick a team, pick a team. One of
the arguments proposed is that by not picking a team one is mentally
castrated, not liberated and so on, one is awash in a sea of
indecision and tolerance. But one needs to look at the changing teams
and ask what it all means. How does one go from being a proponent of
communism to capitalism, from Dionysius to Christ, from Gen X to Baby
Boomer. Somewhere along the line it must be assumed there has been
some synthesis of contradictions, some absorption and perhaps even
some development in one's own personal philosphy that goes beyond
simply picking a different team.
Does loving one necessitate hating another? Must it always, in all
ways?...and if so why?
It is a very basic paradigm (God I hate that word) I see often in all
of the writings.
What I often see and he must have picked up on this by now is that his
writings tend to engender more divisiveness. He breeds rebuttals that
are often as equally divisive and sometimes ill-informed, with people
sometimes speaking for a group they appear to know little about, or if
they do, the rebuttal engages a variants of equally divisive
thought---ie beyond fat women being such and such we eventually arrive
at a point where thin women are such and such. He often introduces
the concept of higher ideals and throws it into the mix but it does
not usually work because one or another team is responsible for the
high ideals while another selected group of the day are the damned.
He is not completely wrong in stating that there is a truth out there
and in the heart. To my mind, his best writings are when the wall of
words are dropped, tribalism ends and it is a narrative of events
juxtaposed just so that it layers in a broader meaning. The problem
with that is that level of near truth leaves one very vulnerable and
typically people who have known him or people who do not know him jump
in like a host of advisors suggesting some corrections that need to be
made. To his very life. It may actually make him angry at people he
chose to call friends, setting up another division-- them or his life.
So, be polite and then draw deeper in, behind the wall of words and
remember never to be so stupid as to expose oneself again. Its what I
see, I'm not interested in arguing this point, it was never
explicitely stated anywhere, I arrived at these conclusions
independently. If I have offended anyone, sorry, I may have been
wrong in what I saw and how I interpreted it.
It is in those posts before they get all gummed up that I remember oh
yeah this guy is brillliant and deep, and the posts are a gift,
possessing a greater truth.
But this other stuff will likely continue well into the millenium and
to me it rings consistently of not-truth, a belief held and fostered
by the division it engenders as evidence of same. It is true that
there were pioneers in the world of thought, and they had opponents
but they *expanded* the discourse by pushing the boundaries of what
was. His opponents are *built in*to the dialogue (er should that be
monologue?), this kind of reduces the effect of any critique for it
must be held that anyone who chooses to critique must simply be on the
other team, the one criticised and any rebuttal is a sort of mechanism
built in to reinforce the stated position.
offallold
> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 15:37:05 GMT, "offallold" <na...@sesamestreet.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Celestial" <sa...@wrapco.com> wrote in message
> >news:3d4b565d.32377313@news...
> >> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 03:21:38 GMT, "offallold" <na...@sesamestreet.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
There used to be a time when 200 megabyte drives necessitated brevity (eg
the inn server I ran), thankfully those days are over. Actually, I enjoy
reading you both and for what it's worth I see two exceptional individuals.
I just wanted to refute a point and see what the result might be. He gets my
vote on elequence and volume if nothing else. I could'nt have predicted
boulders response on the other hand.
Take care
Boulder
news:kmlx9.353916$o.39...@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> I could'nt have predicted
> boulders response on the other hand.
>
Eloquence is for the lame of mind. You didn't answer my question,
offallold.
You like Celestial, because he can't discuss intelligently on on-topic just
like you, he resorts to insults just like you.
You promised me a game. why are you running?
Bouldre
> Take care
>
>
Steve Chaney, aka Mister Gunnykins ®
I agree 100% with balkanism.
Rome tried to unify everyone into one culture and society, and it destroyed
them.
I refuse to be locked in a room with and held to the whims of another group
whose views are detrimental to my values.
Fuck that.
That's what I get out of Ilya's message. He is screaming his individuality
and the simple message that he will not bow down, period.
And to this I say
I
HEAR
THAT
BRUTHA
I do not necessarily believe that different groups should tear each other
apart.
I do not worship goddesses, and do not believe in magick, so I cannot be a
pagan or a Wiccan. But I listen to 'em whenever a sensible person (say,
Rauni) speaks. If I can jolt them into spilling a flood of opinions,
insight and history, I'll shake 'em gently until they finally effervesce.
But when it comes to survival-of-the-fittest fanatics who believe the weak
folks and the nice folks should be stomped, I only venture into their
territory to find a denizen suitable for chewing practice. Other than that,
I will take any steps to ensure they and their ideas stay the fuck out of
my territory. Including using their own predator sadist tactics against
them in a "how does it feel" sort of way.
>Sometimes it is religious
>people-Christians, Hindu, Islam, or abusive men or fat women,
I have a beef with his remarks about fat people in general.
>Gen Xers
>and Baby Boomers. San Fransisco to the Midwest, capitalism v
>communism Post Modernism v Romantics. From time to time his position
>about each of these groups change. At any time it seems he could be
>for or against it.
>
>IN other words his own archives on Google may be the best argument
>against what he states now. For this reason, I find little purpose
>to argue, what will be said to be the answer and true today will be
>different tomorrow.
He is studying things from different angles. I am thinking that he is like
someone analyzing the moon, speaking of it when it is full, then when it is
almost totally "gone". Or someone who sees the world above water, then goes
and takes a dive. Or something like that.
>In one post yay many moons ago he was against tribalsim, well that is
>setting divisions against people
>
>What I find interesting is that the divisions exist as they did and
>were developed as much as they were many moons ago. Just different
>targets of criticisms are shown---pick a team, pick a team. One of
>the arguments proposed is that by not picking a team one is mentally
>castrated, not liberated and so on, one is awash in a sea of
>indecision and tolerance. But one needs to look at the changing teams
>and ask what it all means. How does one go from being a proponent of
>communism to capitalism, from Dionysius to Christ, from Gen X to Baby
>Boomer. Somewhere along the line it must be assumed there has been
>some synthesis of contradictions,
There is.
(Man, this is sounding so familiar.)
>some absorption and perhaps even
>some development in one's own personal philosphy that goes beyond
>simply picking a different team.
>
>Does loving one necessitate hating another? Must it always, in all
>ways?...and if so why?
No, but sometimes, as I described above, it does necessitate it. Especially
when "another" seeks to destroy the world you are building/have built.
>It is a very basic paradigm (God I hate that word) I see often in all
>of the writings.
Ilya is not perfect. News@11.
Ilya stands up for what he believes in. News@11:30
BTW Ilya said this of gen-x:
>I like a lot of individual Gen-Xers. Men, not women. But I dislike the
>generational ethic.
I bet this point will get ignored because it conflicts with the all too
comfortable perception of Ilya's views.
-- Steve
=====
gunh...@vegetus.pacbell.net (Remove "Vegetus." to get my real email address)
"If they take me out, I wanna be on my feet" - GunHed unit 507
Check out the new Self Acceptance forum! http://www.self-acceptance.org/phpbb
DATP - Don't Answer the Autistic Tard Psychos! Punch 'em instead! - http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat/index.html
Important Public Service Announcement: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat20/datp/datp-psa.jpg
Celestial
Thank you both Steve and offallold. I am happy to see these comments
come out of this post.
Thank you and take care.
la n.
Miguel Arigno <a020...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:3dc120bd$0$13178$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at...
>
> Ilya Shambat wrote in message ...
>
> >person must be able to love and to work. There's a catch - a correct
> >kind of work an a correct kind of love. Most of today's working women
> >aren't happy, they are more miserable than 50s housewives. That is
> >because they don't have jobs that are fulfilling, and having destroyed
> >their gentleness and femininity they cannot get love and attack love
> >if it ever finds them. So leave them to their choices, I'll be with a
> >feminine woman who makes me happy as I make her happy.
>
> There are so many people that would say this part of the post is sexist.
> Why? OK, ask them not me :-) I believe that it is true: leave people to
> their choices. I see your choice as perfectly reasonable.
> Me, I would rather find someone independant, but hey, that´s the good
thing:
> we are all different :-)
>
I wouldn't say it is sexist so much as being another one of
Ilya's stereotypes and overgeneralizations. I wonder where
he gets the data that *most* of today's working women
are more miserable than 50s housewives. Especially since
there is a higher rate of depression among married women
than single.
la n.
Pete Turk
Shambat <isha...@aol.com> writes
>I find that the people who are into humility don't really do a whole
>lot of good. They tend to be petty, devitalized, nasty and
>unfulfilled. This is what I have seen especially of the Generation X,
>who made humility as revolt against the arrogance of their parents
>their guiding belief structure. Men who are naturally arrogant but get
>indoctrinated with the belief in humility go around finding the spirit
>of others and dragging it down. Unfulfilled in their own propensities,
>they become abusers. I am not going to wind up like them. I am going
>to stay arrogant and use my arrogance to lift the spirits of people
>who need it.
Don't you find that that those who are _humble_
about something, and those who are _arrogant_ about
something, share exactly the same problem?
And the problem: they ALLOW their initial reaction
(dictated by their character-structure) full rein
in saying _how_ they're going to face some particular,
and possibly very complex problem.
In other words, they don't look upon the issue as
an _issue_, as opposed to how they decide to face it.
>
>I find that the people who look for happiness generally don't find it.
But hasn't that always been so?
>They project the responsibility for happiness onto something other
>than themselves and make themselves into leeches.
'Happiness', 'Responsibility' ?? What do these two
concepts have in common?
>People who look to
>give happiness create populations of people who are dependent on them
>or, worse, abuse them.
For those who _look_ to give happiness, then yes.
For one simple reason, only the 'happy' individual can
say whether he/she's actually happy or not!
>I've been on both sides of this. And yet the
>belief that everyone is responsible for their own happiness created
>another malignancy: a culture of people who pretend to be happy in
>order to not be condemned or considered inadequate individuals.
No, why should these people have to pretend? And why
should they believe _other_ peoples' verdict that they
are inadequate. If they condemn me, why shouldn't _I_
condemn _them_ for that very reason?!
>Meanwhile, wounds fester underneath the facade. Is happiness a
>mistaken pursuit?
Every happy and unhappy person knows the answer!
>Russians seem to think so, and yet when I am unhappy
>the woman I love feels betrayed.
That (with respect, Ilya) is her choice. She may
feel responsible for your emotions. I think she's
wrong to be. IMO _you_ are responsible for your reactions
to anything, like she is for hers, I am for mine, etc.
>She has managed to be giving and
>optimistic in the most horrible of situations, yet even she has been
>destroyed and required assistance.
If she's 'been destroyed' wouldn't it have been
by her own unwarranted expectations of what she
thinks she should be responsible _for_?
> People who work on a project
>generally don't get distracted by emotions,
?
>but the idea that this is
>the case led to destructive workaholism of 1990s that left a
>population of fat and miserable people who have no relationships at
>all and spend all their free time watching TV.
But the answer's in front of them! -- switch off
the TV, _talk to each other_, in 2's then 4's
then 8's then 16's .... then a community.
Oh ... and also read Bertrand Russell's 'In Praise
of Idleness'!
>This is not a
>prescription for any kind of good either. Freud said that the healthy
>person must be able to love and to work. There's a catch - a correct
>kind of work an a correct kind of love. Most of today's working women
>aren't happy, they are more miserable than 50s housewives. That is
>because they don't have jobs that are fulfilling, and having destroyed
>their gentleness and femininity they cannot get love and attack love
>if it ever finds them. So leave them to their choices, I'll be with a
>feminine woman who makes me happy as I make her happy. The
>prescription for everyone's happiness is man and woman making each
>other happy in a relationship even as they make themselves and others
>happy by doing socially productive work.
Agree.
>
>The idea that you reap what you sow is simply untrue. Lots of people,
>especially women, give love and compassion and get back only abuse.
I think the inference has always been: the _bad_
things that you sow will come back as bad things
that you reap.
The plain facts about doing bad and good, as I see
it are:
-- If you do _bad_ things to anyone, then it's
predictable what will happen to you.
-- If you do _good_ things to anyone, then all
bets are off.
And if anyone gets back only abuse, then the solution's
obvious -- you run.
>I
>generally get better response when I am nice than when I am mean; yet
>even when I am nice, as I am on alt.romance, I get attacked.
Yes, but there are particular agenda's involved:
-- someone realises you upstage him whenever you post
on _anything_, and thanks to the American Ethos
he just cannot bear to be (seen as) second-best.
-- someone sees you more proficient in your second
language (English) than they'll ever be in their first.
-- someone has decided that 'Romance sucks' or 'Romance
doesn't exist', then has to confront a powerful case
that you've made. He's lazy (a life-time habit) and
so cannot summon the will-power to refute your case.
-- Someone simply feels disturbed without managing to
ask himself why (or whether he himself is ultimately
responsible).
and I'll make two assertions:
Their problems in face of what you, Ilya,
post are _theirs_, to handle in whatever way
is pleasing to them.
'Publish and be damned'. Whatever you, Ilya,
care to post are your opinions, just as
those of your detractors, my own, and everyone
else's.
>Considering the things I've done in my life that is probably merited,
>but my concern is for the fact that this belief is simply untrue for
>many people, and in the hope of getting good results they do good to
>others and get worn down, leeched out, abused and broken.
You're putting a biassed sample: what about those
who are _supporting_ you, and for whom _you_ are providing
the inspiration of what they will do? ...
>Every Jesus
>has a Judas, for a simple reason. Man has free will, and he will do
>evil if he chooses even if you choose to do good.
Yes, but every Judas has a Jesus.
>You reap what you
>sow if the other person chooses to give you back what you sow. The
>impetus to do good has to be guarded against another person's choice
>to do evil.
... another person's _possible_ choice to do evil???
>
>It is of course true that people should take responsibility for their
>lives, but many may need help before they can get to that point
>mentally. Most people don't understand themselves. Many have bad
>ideologies clouding their heads. Many don't feel they have any power
>whatsoever due to being disadvantaged. But there is a malignancy:
>people feel that way in the ghetto, where the median income is $15000,
>and not in China, where it is $600. So then the poverty is inside
>people's heads, a mentality that they have to change before things can
>improve for them.
Don't agree. A poverty expressed in _money_ terms
is never in anyone's head. The history of China from
1910 to 1949 would show you.
>And yet yelling at them to do that won't change a
>thing. One has to reach out with compassion and one has to tell the
>facts at the same time.
>
>Jim Morrison said, "Girl you gotta love your man." The baby boomer
>women loved their men and got abused in return. When one goes with
>emotions, what one lives is one's animal nature. It is natural for the
>woman to give; it is natural for the man to self-assert, and if
>someone gives to him then he may see it as an imposition against his
>free will and fight it. So nature must not be the only thing in the
>equation, but it can't be left out of the equation the way the Xers or
>WWII people did either or else people turn cruel and devitalized.
>Women go through their lives looking for love, and they find
>themselves only abused and betrayed. One has to have the courage to
>give this love, that has been withheld from them, so that they can
>stop this pursuit and live. I want other men to do this, it is the
>only prescription for healthy society.
>
>So there is a method. The method is this. See the person. Give
>unconditional acceptance. Tell them what you require and stop them
>every time they do evil. And then watch them blossom before your eyes.
Agree.
Pete Turk <Pe...@ragtag.demon.co.uk> ICQ# 11981084
RFA Moonshadow
--
May your doorstep ever be dirty.
-- Romany blessing