"Realism" and authoritarianism
Ilya Shambat
believes that, because his worldview cannot justify such things as -
love, ecstasy, joy, vigor and creativity - he cannot achieve these
experiences or excercise the faculties that are responsible for the
same. He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
oppressive, miserable existence. He feels that it is his duty to
destroy life wherever life may be.
This state of affairs is due to the "realist"'s incomplete
understanding of the universe. Rather, I would say that the way he
chooses the model is reflective of his emotional bias. For while the
"realist" thinks he is rational, he really is not. The reason is as
follows.
If the Big Bang model of the universe is correct - and the "realist"
bases his validity on claiming to speak for the way the world is -
then entropy, or the fact that the universe is running down, is
definitely a fact. But so is it the fact that at one point the
universe came from nothing. The Big Bang model of the universe
presupposes a creative universe - a universe whose essence is
creativity, expansion, passion, LIFE. Which means that, in order to be
true to reality of the universe, one must embody these qualities to
the utmost - and with these qualities to achieve a triumph, for as
long as is possible, over entropy, boredom and death.
Science changes models all of the time. Scientific understanding is
based on a spark of insight that is then checked against evidence,
which evidence is used to validate that spark of insight until
refuting evidence comes along. A "realist" claims to base his view of
the world on science. But if he were truly honest about that, he would
be changing his worldview and actions in pursuit of that worldview
every time a new model of the world came along. That he does not,
shows that he is not intellectually honest and is driven by emotional,
rather than intellectual, considerations. What emotional consideration
might that be?
Let's think about this for a moment. What would motivate a man, a
being of creative power and volitional consciousness, a being that has
transformed the world and continues to transform the world with each
decade, to espouse a model of thought and a model of personality that
sees his role as adaptation to, rather than improvement upon, reality?
What would motivate a man to profane the best attributes of life? What
would motivate a man to stifle passion, to degrade aspiration, to
disparage life, to attack everything that possesses or strives for
these qualities?
The answer to that is desire for emotional security. The "realist" is
an emotional coward who refuses to feel anything he cannot control or
experience anything he cannot make his own. The "realist" wants to own
the world, to guard from all pain, to protect himself (and, against
their will, those under his influence) from existence. The "realist"
wants security above anything that makes life worthwhile - the
"realist" wants to maintain his status even if his status, as it is
always, lacking initiative in obtaining, is that of miserable bore.
The "realist" is shorn of vitality, and he uses incomplete conceptual
models and incomplete understanding of the universe to justify his
failure as reality.
The human being is a creator. The human being is a shaper of reality -
a being that has the mind, and under the mind the tools, to transform
the world into shapes reflective of his ideals. To fail to live up to
that role, is failure to thrive. It is failure to be human. It is
failure to own up to one's part in the universe.
I hardly need anybody's approval to say that the people who think as
"realists" do are not reflective of the best that humanity has to
offer and do not deserve the claim on morality or reality that they
believe they possess.
===============================================================================
The arguments of the authoritarians claiming that the current
pluralistic society is responsible for crime don't bear the first
scrutiny of facts. There was much more crime under Reagan, who was an
oppressive authoritarian, than under Clinton, who was a tolerant
pluralist. The War on Drugs was an expensive monstrosity that failed
to take into account the fact that people who are hooked on drugs
don't care if they get arrested; they just care about the next fix.
Threat of punishment does not work on a desperate person; what works
is a change in his worldview.
Giving people freedom to design their own way puts them in an
existential crisis. The two extreme approaches for dealing with this
are evidenced by pagan religion and Taliban. Pagan instructors and
astrologers see the unique seed in the person and guide him or her
onto a path that works right for him or for her - that allows him or
her to make the most of what is given and achieve fruition and
happiness. Taliban forced people into the same place and killed those
who thought differently.
The pagan approach is more labor-intensive than is the Taliban
approach. It is also a lot more selfless, doing what's right for the
other person and not expecting them to behave in one's own image. As
such, it is far more spiritual and far more compassionate, far more
likely to produce beneficial results. People are all indeed different
and require different kinds of guidance - selfless guidance that lets
them be who they are, not self-interested authoritarianism that wants
them to live by one's rules. A relationship between each person and
higher powers is unique and requires unique insight for each person.
Far more young people die in wars that are a constant feature of
authoritarian society than in crime that is a feature of modern
society. European countries, which are far more liberal than America,
have a lot less crime than does America. Crime happens in America
because there is a macho culture, a culture of predatory consumerism,
a culture of ruthless competition in which people must survive at the
expense of others or have no chance at a life. Crime happens in
America because people do not strive to better the world but rather to
seize, to dominate, to overpower. Crime happens in America because
there is not enough compassionate guidance, and crime was far more
rampant in the greedy, hateful, authoritarian, Christian-right 1980s
than in the 1990s in which there finally were initiatives to help
people help themselves. Crime happens in America because some people
are made second-class citizens, and they feel they have no hope for a
middle class life that as a result of corporate propaganda they think
the only life satisfactory - and, lacking spiritual perspective and
lacking compassion for anyone else, they believe they must seize by
force, or destroy themselves and take down everyone with them they
can.
All of these problems do require spiritual approach to solve. However,
the spiritual answers have to be true, or else they lead to the thing
that made the rebellion necessary in the first place - lies, hypocrisy
and oppression. The answers have to be based in truth of what each
person is, not in fairy tales that paint everyone into the same
picture and hold them in grip of fear. The answers have to be ones
that enhance people's vitality, self-esteem and enjoyment of existence
- ones that allow them to make the most of the seed of the divine that
is in them and develop it for the benefit of themselves and others.
The truth does set people free, for the reason that anything other
than truth makes an enemy of the person's mind, which demands truth,
and seeks to suppress its process of testing and inquiry. The answers
therefore have to be true; anything else leads to a worse place than
what we have now.
And the truth is that people are different. People are different
fundamentally; people are all born with their own unique spirit, which
requires different expression and different kind of guidance. What
works for one person is not going to work for another person; what
helps one person is going to be ruinous to another. Treating another
person as one would like to be treated is wrong, for they might not
want to be treated the way one would want to be treated; rather they
are to be treated the way they would like to be treated, based on
understanding of who they are. Giving everyone the same rules for
living is likewise wrong, because different people do well under
different conditions. A man might be natural at being an engineer, but
his son may find engineering profession ruinous of his vitality. A
woman might blossom in love but another might find love repulsive.
The giveaway that the Bible's answers are not the true ones are two
statement in the Bible: that one should be wary of one's emotions and
that no good thing dwells in the flesh. If one is wary of one's
emotions, one is not experiencing life. Being wary of one's emotions,
instead of understanding or enjoying them, makes one stunted,
small-minded, frightful, ignorant. It makes one not fully human. It
robs one of life, and no creator who created life would have sought
that. Failing to enjoy one's body is really a waste of a body. Many
fabulous things dwell in the flesh and can be accessed when one
understands sensuality.
This, in addition to the fact that most marriages (the supposedly
divine covenant) are wretched, violent, soul-killing prisons that make
everyone horribly off, and that the Australian aborigines who
practiced a different system were a lot happier. This, in addition to
the fact that the Biblical stories have been disproven by archaeology.
This, in addition to the fact that Christianity has been consistently
enforced through evil means. This, in addition to the obvious fact
that the creation story is totally bogus and different stories in the
Bible contradict themselves.
Because people are different, no one set of answers is going to be
right for everyone. Rather one has to understand what the person is,
inherently, and guide him on a path that is for him precisely correct.
This means knowing what his abilities and propensities are and guiding
them to their constructive fulfilment. This is indeed labor-intensive,
far more so than authoritarians would like.
Ms Poopie Pants
can you post a cliff notes version for us ADD impaired readers.
Loev,
Ms Pnats
Chad L
"Ilya Shambat" <isha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d02408fc.02072...@posting.google.com...
> The "realist" feels that it is his duty before reality to not live. He
> believes that, because his worldview cannot justify such things as -
> love, ecstasy, joy, vigor and creativity - he cannot achieve these
> experiences or excercise the faculties that are responsible for the
> same. He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
> oppressive, miserable existence. He feels that it is his duty to
> destroy life wherever life may be.
There are many kinds of "realists" and many ways to use that word. You
paint with a miiiighty wide brush. :) When I say that I am a "realist",
all I mean is that there are things with an objective Reality that are
beyond my conscious perception of them. That's all. None of those other
things you mention are necessarily implied.
>
> This state of affairs is due to the "realist"'s incomplete
> understanding of the universe. Rather, I would say that the way he
> chooses the model is reflective of his emotional bias. For while the
> "realist" thinks he is rational, he really is not. The reason is as
> follows.
>
> If the Big Bang model of the universe is correct - and the "realist"
> bases his validity on claiming to speak for the way the world is -
> then entropy, or the fact that the universe is running down, is
> definitely a fact. But so is it the fact that at one point the
> universe came from nothing.
The big bang model is largely misunderstood, I fear. In no way does the
model imply that "something came from nothing".
The Big Bang model of the universe
> presupposes a creative universe - a universe whose essence is
> creativity, expansion, passion, LIFE. Which means that, in order to be
> true to reality of the universe, one must embody these qualities to
> the utmost - and with these qualities to achieve a triumph, for as
> long as is possible, over entropy, boredom and death.
entropy, bordom, and death are also the true reality of the universe.
Ignoring them won't make them go away, and looking at them more closely
won't make them any "scarier". It is what it is, and if we are to embody its
nature, then why think we can pick and choose what we consider to be a
"quality"?
>
> Science changes models all of the time. Scientific understanding is
> based on a spark of insight that is then checked against evidence,
> which evidence is used to validate that spark of insight until
> refuting evidence comes along. A "realist" claims to base his view of
> the world on science. But if he were truly honest about that, he would
> be changing his worldview and actions in pursuit of that worldview
> every time a new model of the world came along. That he does not,
> shows that he is not intellectually honest and is driven by emotional,
> rather than intellectual, considerations. What emotional consideration
> might that be?
again, such a broad brush you paint with.
sure, if that's how you think "realists" think. Is this an example of
inductive generalization? Or is this a product of your deductive powers or
rationalization?
David Lindauer
Ilya Shambat wrote:
> The "realist" feels that it is his duty before reality to not live. He
> believes that, because his worldview cannot justify such things as -
> love, ecstasy, joy, vigor and creativity - he cannot achieve these
> experiences or excercise the faculties that are responsible for the
> same. He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
> oppressive, miserable existence. He feels that it is his duty to
> destroy life wherever life may be.
>
> This state of affairs is due to the "realist"'s incomplete
> understanding of the universe. Rather, I would say that the way he
> chooses the model is reflective of his emotional bias. For while the
> "realist" thinks he is rational, he really is not. The reason is as
> follows.
>
> If the Big Bang model of the universe is correct - and the "realist"
> bases his validity on claiming to speak for the way the world is -
> then entropy, or the fact that the universe is running down, is
> definitely a fact. But so is it the fact that at one point the
> universe came from nothing. The Big Bang model of the universe
> presupposes a creative universe - a universe whose essence is
> creativity, expansion, passion, LIFE. Which means that, in order to be
> true to reality of the universe, one must embody these qualities to
> the utmost - and with these qualities to achieve a triumph, for as
> long as is possible, over entropy, boredom and death.
>
that is dumb. on the one hand you admit the possibility that the realist may have
a point in trying to emulate the universe, then on the other you say 'oh but only
the part of the universe I think is good, namely the big bang part'.
Are you god?
If so, why did you create a universe that is caught in a running down fashion?
David
Martin Swain
"Mister Gunnykins Ž" <gun...@dingdongthetokemansdead.surfside.net> wrote in
message news:3d4dfe05...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> individual sovereignty, helped fuel the rise of the abhorrent Generation
> X...
Yeah, well at least we know something about style & esthtics. Check your
sig,
for instance. What a dork! All the market power in the world won't make you
hip there Mr-Next-Gen, sorry about that. (Not! Ha!)
Martin-X
>
> -- Steve
> gun...@surf-side.net (remove the "-" to email me)
> "If they take me out, I wanna be on my feet" - GunHed unit 507
> "Let 'em eat eep" - Lady Veteran:
http://www.geocities.com/lady_veteran/Anti_Troll_Fund_Raiser.html
>
> Jackie the Tokeman, R.I.P. BLOCK PARTYYYYYY AND DA BEER IS ON ME!!!!
>
> Check out the new Self Acceptance forum!
http://www.self-acceptance.org/phpbb
> Punch a soc.singles tard!!
http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/pat/index.html
>
> "alt.seduction.fast is full of misogynists suffering from water
> pollution-induced arrested pubescence. Pray for them." - me
>
> "Rejecting Frederika Keefer from Ballet School because she's too short,
> is as logical as kicking Spud Webb out of the NBA." - me
>
> "Men fear original thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than
> ruin, more even than death." - (mostly) bertrand russell
> "Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation or
> creed." - bertrand russell
>
> "Turtoni has a very codependent relationship with Steve
> and Vlad. Nothing like their appearance to get him in
> a frenzy." - Nilo, <71GD8.11992$bV3.4...@news0.telusplanet.net>
> "That's okay, vansmak. One day, if you're a good litle troll,
> you'll have your very own dick to play with." - Victoria Barrett
>
> "When I was a boy, we had to study math and science
> to be recognized as geeks! Now, you just have to
> play computer games." - someone
>
> "You should never wear your best trousers when you
> go out to fight for liberty and truth." - Herbert Gibson
>
> "If you're not on somebody's shit list, you're
> not doing anything worthwhile" - unknown
>
> * "baldness: solar panel for a sex machine," - Turtoni, Message-ID:
<3495158E...@wm.estec.esa.nl>
> * "I embrace the beauty of all women" - Fashion Designer Bijan
> * "Fat is a feature - not a weight problem!" - unknown
Nutmegger
"Ilya Shambat wrote :
> The "realist" feels that it is his duty before reality to not live.
> He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
> oppressive, miserable existence.
>He feels that it is his duty to
> destroy life wherever life may be.
> the "realist" thinks he is rational, he really is not.
> A "realist" claims to base his view of
> the world on science.
> The "realist" is an emotional coward
> The "realist" wants security
>the "realist" wants to maintain his status
Is this for ~real~? :-)
Sorry, the idealistic nature of me just had to ask.
> The human being is a shaper of reality -
Not yet, mother nature still has her hand in there pretty good. I like it
that way - you don't.
> I hardly need anybody's approval to say that the >people who think as
"realists" do are not reflective of the best that humanity has to offer
The "realists" actually have done some wonderful artwork that I consider
reflective of the best.
Nutmegger
"Nutmegger" wrote:
> > The human being is a shaper of reality -
>
> Not yet, mother nature still has her hand in there pretty good. I like it
> that way - you don't.
OMG - that wouldn't make you a realist - would it?
bob
Ilya contains multitudes too!
Tom C
wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2002 09:17:14 -0700, isha...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote:
>
>>The "realist" feels that it is his duty before reality to not live. He
>>believes that, because his worldview cannot justify such things as -
>>love, ecstasy, joy, vigor and creativity - he cannot achieve these
>>experiences or excercise the faculties that are responsible for the
>>same. He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
>>oppressive, miserable existence. He feels that it is his duty to
>>destroy life wherever life may be.
[big snip]
>>http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
>
>
>can you post a cliff notes version for us ADD impaired readers.
short version:
"we're all hopelessly fucked and doomed. so let's transcend it all and
party"
(or)
"make love, not war"
and lastly...
change your pants, change your life.
haaaahaw!
>Loev,
>
>Ms Pnats
Infinity Loev,
Tom
Grrr
The __insert label of the 'reality ignorer' who chooses to reject
others' understanding of realties in favor of their own, here__ is
just saying, 'no, i don't think that is how it works. Here's how i
will think it works instead.. __insert any reality drama here__
because by labeling things according to your own stance in reality it
helps keep an individual balanced and sane, and helps organize the
same human system that must juggle all those labels for memory's and
intelligence's sake. Discerning between realities and reality dramas
is a pursuit based on ones own Will and the determination of the will
under the terms of individuality.
On 25 Jul 2002 09:17:14 -0700, isha...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote:
Grrr
<bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Ilya Shambat" <isha...@aol.com> wrote in message
>sure, if that's how you think "realists" think. Is this an example of
>inductive generalization? Or is this a product of your deductive powers or
>rationalization?
It's the byproduct of somebody looking to make their own reality too
inclusive of other(s') realities. A good way to lose yourself, sanity
inclusive.
You discern as you will to maintain contentment within your self.
And be careful what you wish for.
The nature of Buddha is to digest and metabolize all the things that
are presented to one.
Thus nothing is rejected.
Ilya Shambat
> paint with a miiiighty wide brush. :) When I say that I am a "realist",
> all I mean is that there are things with an objective Reality that are
> beyond my conscious perception of them. That's all. None of those other
> things you mention are necessarily implied.
OK, then I wasn't talking about you. Of course there is an objective
reality beyond one's conscious perception. The people I was talking
about are ones who claim their stated realism as a reason to attack
people's passion, spirit, and creativity.
> The big bang model is largely misunderstood, I fear. In no way does the
> model imply that "something came from nothing".
OK. What is the substance from which everything came? And when did it
originate?
> entropy, bordom, and death are also the true reality of the universe.
> Ignoring them won't make them go away, and looking at them more closely
> won't make them any "scarier". It is what it is, and if we are to embody its
> nature, then why think we can pick and choose what we consider to be a
> "quality"?
I understand that as well. Death is a reality, but so is birth.
Entropy is a reality, but so is the creative power. Boredom is a
reality, but so is excitement. It's all real, though it's not all
good.
Ilya Shambat
> But whose "realist" is real?
>
> The __insert label of the 'reality ignorer' who chooses to reject
> others' understanding of realties in favor of their own, here__ is
> just saying, 'no, i don't think that is how it works. Here's how i
> will think it works instead.. __insert any reality drama here__
> because by labeling things according to your own stance in reality it
> helps keep an individual balanced and sane, and helps organize the
> same human system that must juggle all those labels for memory's and
> intelligence's sake. Discerning between realities and reality dramas
> is a pursuit based on ones own Will and the determination of the will
> under the terms of individuality.
What is a reality drama?
I'd like to understand what you mean by "determination of the will
under the terms of individuality." Are you saying that one's
individuality is what determines one's will? Do you see will as
therefore determined, hence not free?
Ilya Shambat
> The "realists" actually have done some wonderful artwork that I consider
> reflective of the best.
Yeah, just not the "realists" I speak of. I don't know if you met the
kind of people I'm talking about, but I run into them all the time.
Ms Poopie Pants
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:54:50 GMT, reply@noreply (Ms Poopie Pants)
>wrote:
>
>>On 25 Jul 2002 09:17:14 -0700, isha...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote:
>>
>>>The "realist" feels that it is his duty before reality to not live. He
>>>believes that, because his worldview cannot justify such things as -
>>>love, ecstasy, joy, vigor and creativity - he cannot achieve these
>>>experiences or excercise the faculties that are responsible for the
>>>same. He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
>>>oppressive, miserable existence. He feels that it is his duty to
>>>destroy life wherever life may be.
>
>[big snip]
>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
>>
>>
>>can you post a cliff notes version for us ADD impaired readers.
>
>short version:
>
>"we're all hopelessly fucked and doomed. so let's transcend it all and
>party"
>
>(or)
>
>"make love, not war"
translation: he is horney and wants to get laid. Flowery prose must
help him get laid. Transform horniness into social message = getting
laid.
>
>and lastly...
>
>change your pants, change your life.
>
>haaaahaw!
oh he is plagerizing ma booke. ok I weill do teh amerikan ting and
sue his ass.
>
>>Loev,
>>
>>Ms Pnats
>
>Infinity Loev,
>
>Tom
Tanks fer yer hepp!
Loev,
Ms Pants
Grrr
>Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote in message news:<2up1kug77fl0cni41...@4ax.com>...
>> But whose "realist" is real?
>>
>> The __insert label of the 'reality ignorer' who chooses to reject
>> others' understanding of realties in favor of their own, here__ is
>> just saying, 'no, i don't think that is how it works. Here's how i
>> will think it works instead.. __insert any reality drama here__
>> because by labeling things according to your own stance in reality it
>> helps keep an individual balanced and sane, and helps organize the
>> same human system that must juggle all those labels for memory's and
>> intelligence's sake. Discerning between realities and reality dramas
>> is a pursuit based on ones own Will and the determination of the will
>> under the terms of individuality.
>
>What is a reality drama?
I meant just any small, maybe volatile, life episodes.
i could also have wrote;
>>Discerning between realities/reality dramas
>I'd like to understand what you mean by "determination of the will
>under the terms of individuality." Are you saying that one's
>individuality is what determines one's will?
Well, the very notion of a one is to individuate.
But my only argument was that individuality infers an individualism
which extends way beyond those few little philosophical details you
gave by example.
Do you see will as
>therefore determined, hence not free?
both. Although i cannot think nor speak separately for the authority
from which will has come from nor the product which it becomes, i
imagine that both can happen together and that there are sacrifices
and benefits either way.
Nutmegger
"Ilya Shambat" wrote
> > The "realists" actually have done some wonderful artwork that I consider
> > reflective of the best.
>
> Yeah, just not the "realists" I speak of.
Ok, because I absolutely love their art and find it so inspiring and vivid,
like I can reach out and touch a hand.
It goes back to what I wrote in the other thread, about self.
>I don't know if you met the
> kind of people I'm talking about, but I run into them all the time.
Met?!
Hehehe, Ilya I worked for years with people like that. Nothing is more real
to them than their $$$!
I'll tell you something though, think of Maria. She is a realist and she is
also one of my best friends. We connect on a spiritual level, she is a true
friend who tells me like it is and gives me great advice. I don't dislike
realistic people, they balance me. I don't discount what they say either, I
have learned a great deal from them. Sure, I have come across people who
seem to live a miserable existence. First off, I don't feel a need to judge
their existence, because it is their life. If that's what they want - more
power to them. Secondly, it usually all comes and bites them in the ass
sooner or later and when it does, guess who they come to? Why me of course,
because I balance out the other side to them.
I'm actually battling myself all the time - realistic verses idealistic,
although I lean more toward idealistic. I have found, for me, it all
depends on the day, the people I am around, the work I am doing, the mood I
am in or a problem I am trying to solve. If I go through life either one
way or the other, I am not happy. This works for me. I can switch at the
drop of a hat, and I do - depending... Can't have a bunch of idealistics
running around, nor a bunch of realistics either. 'Tis the way of the
world. There are all types out there - That much I do know..........
Chad L
"Grrr" <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote in message
Did Buddha die of poisoning or kidney failure?
Chad L
news:<ahpn83$5g8$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...>
> > There are many kinds of "realists" and many ways to use that word. You
> > paint with a miiiighty wide brush. :) When I say that I am a
"realist",
> > all I mean is that there are things with an objective Reality that are
> > beyond my conscious perception of them. That's all. None of those other
> > things you mention are necessarily implied.
>
> OK, then I wasn't talking about you. Of course there is an objective
> reality beyond one's conscious perception. The people I was talking
> about are ones who claim their stated realism as a reason to attack
> people's passion, spirit, and creativity.
Yeah, you seem to be talking more about "nihilists" than realists. Though
some realists may be nihilists, it is not true that all or even many
realists are nihilists (though nihilists do tend to stick out in one's
thoughts due to their extreme positions). Nihilism, in my opinion is just
something to be ignored. It's like that song, "...you've got to
aaaaccentuate the positive...".
take care
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Ms Poopie Pants <reply@noreply> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:45:07 GMT, tom_socsi...@yahoo.com (Tom C)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:54:50 GMT, reply@noreply (Ms Poopie Pants)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Jul 2002 09:17:14 -0700, isha...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote:
[yadda yadda yadda]
>>>can you post a cliff notes version for us ADD impaired readers.
>>
>>short version:
>>
>>"we're all hopelessly fucked and doomed. so let's transcend it all and
>>party"
>>
>>(or)
>>
>>"make love, not war"
>
>
>translation: he is horney and wants to get laid. Flowery prose must
>help him get laid. Transform horniness into social message = getting
>laid.
Wrks for me.
>>and lastly...
>>
>>change your pants, change your life.
>>
>>haaaahaw!
>
>oh he is plagerizing ma booke.
inded.
>ok I weill do teh amerikan ting and
>sue his ass.
that should be good for another electronic ream or five of "the US sux for
those of us who are so senseteeeve we can hardly stand it".
feel the loev,
BigTitsChar
bob
{a few words in response to Ms Pants who responded to Master Ilya then
she finished with}
>feel the loev,
>BigTitsChar
post some pics or something
jim dutton
Steve Chaney <gunhed@tokemanisdead_hawhawhaw.surfside.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jul 2002 04:40:27 -0700, isha...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) posted:
>
>>"Chad L" <bluek...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:<ahpn83$5g8$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...>
>>> There are many kinds of "realists" and many ways to use that word. You
>>> paint with a miiiighty wide brush. :) When I say that I am a "realist",
>>> all I mean is that there are things with an objective Reality that are
>>> beyond my conscious perception of them. That's all. None of those other
>>> things you mention are necessarily implied.
>>
>>OK, then I wasn't talking about you. Of course there is an objective
>>reality beyond one's conscious perception. The people I was talking
>>about are ones who claim their stated realism as a reason to attack
>>people's passion, spirit, and creativity.
>
>Their presence is like that of old, stagnant water.
>Yuck.
>
>I wish I was a baby boomer and not born among Gen-X :)
>
>
>>I understand that as well. Death is a reality, but so is birth.
>>Entropy is a reality, but so is the creative power. Boredom is a
>>reality, but so is excitement. It's all real, though it's not all
>>good.
>
>-- Steve
I think it makes you look fat.
-Jeem, HTH
Archive-name: stevechaney-faq
Posting-Frequency: whenever
Last-modified: 2001/05/22
Version: 2.1
alt.bonehead.steve-chaney FAQ
Table of Contents
1. Who is Steve Chaney?
2. Why is he hated by almost everyone?
3. Is Chaney a loser?
4. Is Chaney obese?
5. How long has be been making an ass of himself on usenet?
6. Does he really have a girlfriend?
7. What other names does he go by?
8. What qualifies Steve as a net loon?
9. Was Chaney thrown out of school?
10. Did Chaney threaten his ex-girlfriend?
11. Is Chaney insane?
12. Is Chaney a welcher?
13. Is Chaney a stalker?
14. What does Chaney think of Shakespeare?
15. What does Shakespeare think of Chaney?
16. Does Chaney have a learning disability?
17. Why does Steve Chaney have his own newsgroup?
18. Is Steve Chaney insanely jealous of Brad Pitt?
19. Where can i learn more about Steve Chaney?
20. Where can i learn more about Chaney's girlfriend?
21. What is my final advice for Steve Chaney?
22. What will happen to Chaney if he does not take my advice?
****
1. Who is Steve Chaney?
Steve Chaney is the official loser of soc.singles. When he isn't shoving
his foot in his mouth on soc.singles he squanders his time playing Quake,
farting around on IRC, watching Highlander, drooling over Japanese
cartoons and creating web pages devoted to these extremely productive
activities among which are such diverse elements as:
http://www.clandenial.org
http://www.self-acceptance.org
2. Why is he hated by almost everyone?
He is that most annoying of creatures: The total failure who thinks he
knows it all. Everywhere he goes he can be seen offering worthless advice
on subjects he knows nothing about. He thinks he is terribly clever.
Combine this mediocre intellect with a total lack of any wit or charm and
you have a potent combination that led him to be dubbed the Natural Born
Troll.
He is particulary hated on soc.singles:
Steve's participation in soc.singles is characterized by four things:
(1) he professes to hate all snigglers [regular participants in
soc.singles], yet he is always seeking to prove that he is the equal
of a sniggler; (2) he attempts, endlessly, to advise others who are
obviously more intelligent, successful, and happier than he about how
to become an unhappy failure just like him; (3) he argues with
everything any sniggler tells him, but mysteriously months later the
advice he received is the advice he is now giving. He claims, however,
that it's his own; and (4) documentation. Steve claims to be the king
of documenting claims. However, his feeble attempts at documenting his
claims either prove nothing or prove the opposite of what he's
arguing.
---- From: m...@oz.net (Mike)
Message-ID: <3456834b....@news.oz.net>
Important revision (1999/2/10):
Originally I believed that Chaney was not hated for his politics.
However Daniel Mocsny (dmo...@mfm.com) has argued convincingly that
within the culture of soc.singles social conservatives are anathema
especially if they are anti-abortion.
So my fiscal conservatism or tree's opposition to high taxes or Dawn's
pro-gun stance not inspiring the same degree of opprobrium as Chaney does
not mean that conservatism is acceptable there.
On soc.singles it is indeed possible to be politically incorrect.
3. Is Chaney a loser?
Yes.
He is a fat slob.
He is in denial about being a fat slob.
His girlfriend is a fat slob.
His previous long-distance girlfriend was a fat slob.
He lived with his mommy til he was 25 years old.
Like many losers he hates and envies those doing better than he is.
He whines constantly.
He blames social forces for his own failures and inadequacies.
His idea of dating advice is to brag about how you eat Ramen Noodles but
plan to learn to cook for your wife (whine, grovel, whine)
He is almost universally despised everywhere he posts.
He enjoys many loser hobbies including listening to Rush Limbaugh and Dr.
Laura, babbling on IRC, playing Quake, watching and obsessing over
shallow
TV shows, and producing garish, clumsily constructed web pages about the
above loser topics. (see question 1.)
4. Is Chaney obese?
Yes. He claims he weighs 230 pounds and is 5 foot 11 inches tall.
>Tokeman wrote:
>>I challenge you to post your current weight and body fat percentage.
>
230lbs; I haven't got a bodyfat percentage figure yet.
---- gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney)
Message-ID: <6cu62m$o...@crl.crl.com>
He had managed to lose about 10 pounds in six months as of 3/98. At this
rate he might attain a healthy weight in about two and a half years.
However his recent reticence about posting his current weight might be an
indication that he has failed to make any progress since the last update.
I would also note that the original claim in this FAQ that he was
morbidly obese may have been in error. Steve's BMI is over 30 but it is
not 40. Recently Crash Street Kidd helpfully pointed out that a BMI of 40
is the threshold of morbid obesity. Of course he never said a peep about
it before but better late than never.
Any further data on the medical definition of morbid obesity would be
helpful.
However:
Tokeman wrote:
>Jim Dutton wrote:
> > Said the 5'6" 330 lb lump of lard.
>
> Jeem, what is your source of those numbers?
> I am revising the alt.bonehead.steve-chaney FAQ and I am trying to
resolve
> this mystery once and for all.
I've been suspicious about that all along. My suspicions were
heightened when the letter from his ex girlfriend (Toni?) was included
in the bonehead faq - wherein she states "He weighs close to 300
lbs..."
---- Leanne R Campbell <lrca...@hsc.vcu.edu>
- Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96.990207...@taurus.vcu.edu>
It is possible that Steve has been lying about this all along.
However Jeem admits his figure is a guess so it should also be taken with
a grain of cheesy poof flavoring:
>> >Tokeman wrote:
>> >> Jim Dutton wrote:
>> >> > Said the 5'6" 330 lb lump of lard.
>> >>
>> >> Jeem, what is your source of those numbers?
Off the top of my head. I figure we might as well all be making crap up.
Trish is a crack whore. Chaney is an expert on dating. I have seen him
and one of his low self esteem victims pictures tho. The numbers are not
far off
Pictures don't lie.
---- j...@MCS.COM (Jim Dutton)
- Message-ID: <79pdd0$2c5v$1...@Mercury.mcs.net>
My apologies to Steve for saying he was MORBIDLY obese for the past year
based on an erroneous definition.
In future I shall not take John Fereira's (ja...@cornell.edu) word on
anything.
Incidentally - how's the diet going chubs?
5. How long has be been making an ass of himself on usenet?
Since the summer of 1992 -- at least that's when I first noticed him
waddling
into talk.abortion.
---- pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Message-ID: <szksotv...@pentagon.io.com>
6. Does he really have a girlfriend?
Unknown. He claims to. He says she is 180 pounds and 5 foot 5 inches tall
ie obese.
7. What other names does he go by?
Gunhed. Tunastankboy. Airplane Boy. PropellerBoy. The Hamster. Anime.
Lordfeff. SharonFan. Richie Ryan. Gund00d. fatcrack. Eric Cartman.
Readingdisabilityboy. Pat Bastard. Mailbomber. Pelican Gullet. Welchboy.
Anal plug. Stebo Spnako. Fuckhead.
8. What qualifies Steve as a net loon?
He is mentioned in the net.legends FAQ as a noted talk.abortion wacko.
His qualifications are also bound to be on display in any thread where he
is at work.
9. Was Chaney thrown out of school?
It is widely claimed that he flunked out of college. This may be
usenet legend only. Hopefully someday Steve will clear this whole
thing up.
---- From: m...@oz.net (Mike)
Message-ID: <3456834b....@news.oz.net>
Chaney wrote:
>I, on the other hand, have been asked to explain the claim that I was
>thrown out of college. Seeing as I never was, what can I say? Jim,
mind
>you, will never provide any documentation showing I was ever thrown out
of
>college, because it never happened.
Hmmm Your ex -fiancee who glows now that she's married to what she
refers
to as "a real man" states you were unable to maintain a "c" average and
were
thrown out of school.
---- j...@MCS.COM (Jim Dutton)
Message-ID: <69vnn6$85i$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
10. Did Chaney threaten his ex-girlfriend?
Absolutely without a doubt, first hand knowledge, yes.
---- Ben Tersian <ter...@modwiz.com>
Message-ID: <344CA4EC...@modwiz.com>
We have her firsthand testimony as well:
>Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 19:21:16 -0600 (MDT)
>From: What happens if I press THIS button? <ana...@math.enmu.edu>
>To: Talk-List <talk...@leba.net>
>Subject: This is the side of Tawnya that GunHed won't tell anyone.
(snip)
>There was a lot that caused me to no longer want to be with Steve. Some
>of it was the fact that he was too .. rigid. To me, he had no sense of
>humour and he took all my questions to be personal attacks. Yes, I
>admit that I was a bitch to him for the last year. That's because I did
>not want to be with him. Since April of '94, I told him that I wanted
>out of the relationship. But he wouldn't let me go. He refused to let
>me leave him even though he knew I wasn't happy with him. So, I started
>arguments at any opportunity I could. I made his life a living hell
>trying to get him to let me go, but he wouldn't.
(snip)
>It was almost fateful the night that Steve and I got into a monstrous
>argument. It was a stupid argument over which wordprocessor was better:
>WordPerfect 6.0 for DOS or MS-Word6.0. For nearly 2 hours, we argued.
>Finally, Steve cut the "TALK" session that we were holding at 6:58pm,
>MST, on Thursday, March 9th. Since I had a class at 7, I simply logged
>out and went to class. I came back at 10pm, MST, and there was a very
>nasty letter in my box saying that I "fucked up" and he was leaving me
>because "he was tired of my bullshit and how I was treating him like
>shit". It was then that I realized that I was finally free of him. I
>didn't leave him, he left me.
(snip)
>Monday morning when I went back online, I found out that Steve had
>started spreading that I cheated on him. I tell you this. I did not
>cheat on him. It was not until the 10th of March, the day AFTER Steve
>left me, that I finally agreed to go out with John. AFTER he had left
>me.
>
>Then, he swore to me that if I did not leave John then he would come
>after me with a shotgun. Now that seems a little farfetched as he won't
>come to New Mexico, where I have always lived and he also swore that if
>I came to California, then he would have a shotgun ready for me and/or
>have me arrested.
>
>But for what? I never once said that I would go see him, and I don't
>think that he owns all of California. He has threatened to do too many
>things to me, anything from Netdeath to reality death. And this hasn't
>been just because I left him, but because I wasn't lett him control me
>any longer.
>
>When he came here in January of '94, it was a happy time. Until I saw
>that he lived for control. I went on IRC one night just to check my
>mail and to say Hi to anyone I knew, I was kicked off by a dork who had
>taken over #talk. But because I didn't go into catatonics, Steve went
>crazy.
>
>He stomped around my room with fists clenched and there was a wild look
>in his eyes. Now I'm 6' and weigh approximately 200 (give or take 5
>lbs) lbs and I know how to defend myself. However, I was afraid of what
>Steve was going to do as he slammed his fist against the wall (which
>caused it to boom out loudly) and I knew that if he were to strike me, I
>wouldn't be in a good position to do anything against him considering
>he's 6'0 and weighs nearly 300lbs. Basically, I was not safe with him,
>or so I felt.
>
>Probably by now, all of you are bored stiff. I admit that this is not
>what you designed this talk-list for. But please, realize this. I did
>NOT cheat on Steve. He dumped me and there was someone here who was
>willing to go out with me. John is here, with me, in the same area as I
>am. He's not pushing marriage on me. Steve was going to make me either
>have his children or raise them, whereas I didn't want either. Also,
>John shares my love for animals, whereas Steve would rather seem them as
>roadkill.
(snip)
>I leave the judgement up to God's hands, as we humans are too flawed to
>judge ourselves. Only the Purest may decide.
>
>Toni A. Anaya
11. Is Chaney insane?
Yes.
12. Is Chaney a welcher?
Chaney offered to meet any sniggler on at the sniggler's locale and on
his terms to engage in a "pickup" contest. When his offer was
accepted, he revoked it.
---- From: m...@oz.net (Mike)
Message-ID: <3456834b....@news.oz.net>
13. Is Chaney a stalker?
I'd say so, seeing as he's been promising for the past five years to
confront
me at my workplace -- Rice University -- for my alleged racism (and,
whether
he admits it or not, for nothing more than being pro-choice and a parent
_and_
grandparent). Funny thing is, even now that he's making tons of alleged
money, he _still_ can't figure out how to get from Los Angeles to Houston
to
do his confronting.
----pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Message-ID: <szksotv...@pentagon.io.com>
He is a netstalker. He mercilessly hounded Trish Roberts and accused
her of being a crackhead.
---- From: m...@oz.net (Mike)
Message-ID: <3456834b....@news.oz.net>
14. What does Chaney think of Shakespeare?
Generally, the LOWLIEST of Japanese cartoons have a deeper plot and more
creativity, than the very BEST of William Shakespeare's plays.
---- gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney)
and time has not diminished his idiocy:
Liliolanus wrote:
>Steve Chaney (gun...@surf.side.net) :
>> Question:
>> I do however wonder why most Americans could give a rat's ass about
>> such a presumed prestigious fellow as Shakespeare, who but for the
>> help of a few fans who rediscovered and redistributed his work, would
>> have never amounted to anything. Shakespeare is big shit with the
>> literary academia, and with students trying to get through the
>> bullshit english lit classes
>
>Yo Steve - this opinion about Shakespeare? You know how much I
>respect this opinion about Shakespeare? I respect it like I respect
>
>the common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
>as reek o' th' rotten fens, whose loves I prize
>As the dead carcasses of unburied men
>That do corrupt my air: I banish you.
- From: wey...@teleport.com (Lydia van der Weyden)
Message-ID: <3957aec0....@news.teleport.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000
References: <2c12fd335fb7aaf9...@anon.xg.nu>
<396c6a48...@news.earthlink.net>
<MPG.13be05ef9...@news.cis.dfn.de>
15. What does Shakespeare think of Chaney?
"Think him a great way fool, solely a coward"
-- All's Well That Ends Well, I,1
"A whoreson beetle-headed, flap-ear'd knave!"
-- "Taming of the Shrew", IV,1
15b. What would ol' Will say to him if he were on the internet?
"Hang, cur! hang, you whoreson, insolent noisemaker!"
-- The Temptest, I,1
"A pox o' your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!"
-- same
---- contributed by the...@inlink.com (The_Doge of St. Louis)
Message-ID: <thedoge-0111970153330001@ppp-207-193-20-
62.stlsmo.swbell.net>
16. Does Chaney have a learning disability?
Unsure, he was placed in a special school as a child for a learning
disability.
---- Ben Tersian <ter...@modwiz.com>
Message-ID: <344CA4EC...@modwiz.com>
Most of your difficulties here stem from your own misunderstandings and
poor reading and comprehension skills. The classic example was when you
claimed to have seen Seth's plate at a gathering, at a time when he was
3,000 miles away. The plate in question actually belonged to someone
named Keith (and was so marked), but you were so convinced that Seth was
there to torment you that you imagined his presence, as verified by his
---- m...@news.pe.net (Michael K. Lerch)
Message-ID: <7lils0$uj$1...@magnolia.pe.net>
17. Why does Steve Chaney have his own newsgroup?
Because he's a bonehead of course!
18. Is Steve Chaney insanely jealous of Brad Pitt?
Sure looks that way:
"Fortunately I know enough women who don't like him, that Brad Pitt
doesn't bother me. There's too many Brad Pitt's to get jealous of
them all."
"I don't like very much of this sick and twisted, narrow-minded,
MTV-poisoned, Brad Pitt and Claudia Schiffer, you're-a-nice-guy-but,
women can be victims but men have to suck it all up and yet we call
this equality society."
"The same is true of good looking guys. Look at Brad Pitt (ick)."
"But I do have to admit, I personally have seen the "I have to be in
love first..." and then Brad Pitt's picture comes on the tube and it's
all "I'd love to be with him!" (and you know what that means)."
"I have to love him before I bed him - OOH there's Brad Pitt I'd love
to take him home!".
"Tut tut tut. What evidence do you have that Brad Pitt *IS* smart?"
"Brad Pitt is the worst actor to have ever existed. Jerry's kids
could do better than he can!"
"I love Brad Pitt's role as an insane asylum inmate in '12 Monkeys.'
It was so fitting."
"Rarely does any other country's women give a whit about David
Hasselhoff or Brad Pitt."
"For many women, conversational skills basically constitute how much
you know about sports and Brad Pitt, or how many jokes you can tell."
"They watch soap operas and think Brad Pitt is the be all and end all
of mankind - of course there is that rebellious "Long Live Tom Cruise"
splinter group."
"They may be desperate for a Brad Pitt Man, mind you, but they're
desperate."
---- gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney)
19. Where can i learn more about steve chaney?
20. Where can i learn more about chaney's girlfriend?
http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com
but seriously you can judge for yourself whether or not stebe is a
desperate loser by perusing the followink actual photographs of his
female equivalent in her natural habitat:
http://www.ejeem.com/p.jpg
http://www.ejeem.com/i.jpg
http://www.ejeem.com/g.jpg
21. Whats this stuff about Chaney being a pedophile?
Chaney often makes pedophile comments about his antagonists children.
On 5 occasions he has failed to accept offers to repeat said comments
to the face of parents of these children. He appears proud of his extensive
history of being a snivelling coward.
22. What is my final advice for Steve Chaney?
Commit suicide.
Ditch the boybra.
23. What will happen to Chaney if he does not take my advice?
Listen up Steve, this is your life:
Here's what will happen to you. You will get older and each year you will
get fatter. Your inactivity and reclusiveness will make you more and more
repulsive. If you're LUCKY this obese sow you're porking will deteriorate
at the same rate and have just as few options as you do. You will have
sex about once every two weeks, then once a month, then every other
month. You will fall into a rut at a job paying a little more than the
average income. You will spend endless hours watching TV and playing
video games. Time will slip away. And then one day you will be
contemplating your life. And you will feel a terrible emptiness as you
look back at the horrible void that was your existence. You'll shiver not
knowing why. And then the grim reaper will reach out and erase you from
the world and they'll bury you and no one will remember and no one will
care because in your 42 years you never, ever, no not ever, not even
once, did anything bold or interesting or original.
The End.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
lies are stebe's only avenue to access his ultimate ambition .. which
is prety much just to perceive himself as a glowing hero.
- cb
Ilya Shambat
response.
Steve Chaney <gunhed@tokemanisdead_hawhawhaw.surfside.net> wrote:
>Apathetic people make me sick.
>Their presence is like that of old, stagnant water.
>Yuck.
Essentially, it's a case of not living.
>I wish I was a baby boomer and not born among Gen-X :)
Same here. But now that we are born where and when we were born, out
of our time and out of our medium, we got work to do to help our kind.
Some people get born in their medium; others don't. Those who don't
get to work to be what they are.
>>I understand that as well. Death is a reality, but so is birth.
>>Entropy is a reality, but so is the creative power. Boredom is a
>>reality, but so is excitement. It's all real, though it's not all
>>good.
>What do you think of the whole Hindu Kali thing? :)
Kali is representation of the female as being aggressive and
murderous, a representation that they used to portray women as being
amoral so that they could more easily keep them in chains. Kali is a
myth of the female as destructive, a reification of the terror of the
female and a convenient excuse to oppress real women under the
pretense that they may have Kali-like power. I do not like Hindu
mythos, it teaches people to be obedient in order that despots can get
the better of them and get away with horrible orders. India needs to
develop a spine before it can rise from poverty, and such a spine is
not found in ideology that teaches people that everything is a result
of karma.
Grrr
>alt.bonehead.steve-chaney FAQ
<snipped- way too much space consumed for what looks like way to much
time spent detailing the bowel habits of another presumed time-waster>
oh my,
you appear to dance around all but the most pertinent of details: the
length and girth of his penis.
So how *does* it compare, Jim?
We want to see JPEGs.
>my FAQ:
>Table of Contents
>
>1. What is jim dutton?
>2. Should any of these sort of posts be posted into alt.magick
>1. What is jim dutton?
1: now in my killfile.
>2. Should any of these sort of posts be posted into alt.magick
2: no: note follow up.
Ashurbanipal
>The "realist" feels that it is his duty before reality to not live.
Hrmm. Do you encourage people to don Superman suits and jump off
buildings?
>He believes that, because his worldview cannot justify such things as -
Assumes you know the worldview in question. An ad hominem strawman.
>love, ecstasy, joy, vigor and creativity - he cannot achieve these
>experiences or excercise the faculties that are responsible for the
>same. He feels that it is his duty to live a drab, whining,
>oppressive, miserable existence. He feels that it is his duty to
>destroy life wherever life may be.
'Destroy'. Academy award for Hysterical Overacting is won, yet again,
by Ilya Shambat!
>presupposes a creative universe - a universe whose essence is
>creativity, expansion, passion, LIFE. Which means that, in order to be
And death. Slightly more death than life. Yin Yang Jam Damn Wig Bam.
>the utmost - and with these qualities to achieve a triumph, for as
>long as is possible, over entropy, boredom and death.
I'll read your posts anyways. I am sacrificing for others!
>Science changes models all of the time. A "realist" claims to base his view
>of the world on science. But if he were truly honest about that, he would
>be changing his worldview and actions in pursuit of that worldview
>every time a new model of the world came along.
EXACTLY!
>That he does not,
Who says?
>shows that he is not intellectually honest and is driven by emotional,
>rather than intellectual, considerations.
You mean like you change your models all the time, in abeyance of
science or sanity? Gosh.
>Let's think about this for a moment. What would motivate a man, a
>being of creative power and volitional consciousness, a being that has
>transformed the world and continues to transform the world with each
>decade, to espouse a model of thought and a model of personality that
>sees his role as adaptation to, rather than improvement upon, reality?
'We Jews must band together to destroy the Goyim...'
>The answer to that is desire for emotional security. The "realist" is
>an emotional coward who refuses to feel anything he cannot control or
Says the "man" who is useless in a fight.
>I hardly need anybody's approval to say that the people who think as
>"realists" do are not reflective of the best that humanity has to
>offer and do not deserve the claim on morality or reality that they
>believe they possess.
You win every time when you argue both sides!
Your mother must be proud! "Ilya can never defeat Ilya!"
[...]
>practiced a different system were a lot happier. This, in addition to
>the fact that the Biblical stories have been disproven by archaeology.
They have? Which ones? Where? When?
>Because people are different, no one set of answers is going to be
>right for everyone.
Man. I love have you go on at length about the evil of (eventually)
all worldviews except your own and then pop out with this.
>This is indeed labor-intensive,
>far more so than authoritarians would like.
'HEINRICH!'
'JA!'
'Dot mann ist working TOO HARD! MAKE HIM STOP!'
'Jawohl, Herr Sturmbannfuhrer!'
ash
['Mulberry bush.']
--
"Another bloody country gone West."
_________________________________________________________________
Give me Liberty or give me a nice house in France from whence I
can hunt some Liberty down. Or you can eat lead. Get off my wave.
Two|Riven against a Black Sun|six|...that which we are we are|One