Pervert Pedophile Muhammed -- Founder of the most Misogynist Religion
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
Association at the University of Southern California, hardly a
"biased" source...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html
Sahih Muslim
The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)
Book 008, Number 3310:
"'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
admitted to his house when I was nine years old."
What other "religion" on this Earth has a child molestor as its
founder?
--
HEATHENS FOR AMERICA
Ruiseart agus Ceit
wrote:
I don't think attacks on Islam in general is appropriate. If you want
to attack something then why not try restricting your comments to the
fundamentalist and terrorist organisations, who are the minority.
Remember, there are a lot of good Moslems out there too.
Ceit.
>
>
>What other "religion" on this Earth has a child molestor as its
>founder?
>
>--
>
>HEATHENS FOR AMERICA
>
>http://www.efn.org/~mjk/
http://druid.drak.net/druid/druidorder.html
LISTEN TO OUR MUSIC AT:
http://www.mp3.com/Ravenswing
White Draco
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
RedBear
Jewish law. Says that girls as yopung as 3 are marriageable because at
that age, their virginity can be guaranteed. Do Jewish people marry
off their daughters at that age? No. You need to consider that thing
were different then. Lots of religions have things in them that we
consider weird or perverted. In ancient Ireland, the king had to mate
with a white mare. That's pretty weird too me, but I don't go out
condemning Irish people for it. So why don't you take your sick,
racist little peabrain elsewhere, eh?
mj...@yahoo.com (Milton John Kleim, Jr.) wrote in message news:<64218a5b.01100...@posting.google.com>...
Daibhi
redb...@bigmailbox.net says...
> Well, Milton, hate to burst your little bubble but you ought to read
> Jewish law. Says that girls as yopung as 3 are marriageable because at
> that age, their virginity can be guaranteed. Do Jewish people marry
> off their daughters at that age?
Question, serious type, where in the Torah or Talmud is that indicated?
Thanks
daibh
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> I don't think attacks on Islam in general is appropriate.
Do you or do you not approve of child molestation? Islam's founder
and central figure did.
Do you or do you not approve of misogyny? The vast majority of
Islam's followers and countless passages in the Koran do.
> If you want to attack something then why not try restricting your comments to
> the fundamentalist and terrorist organisations, who are the minority.
That's simply not true. The majority, the commoners in the streets,
share these "extreme" views and often act on them.
> Remember, there are a lot of good Moslems out there too.
There are? Do they approve of the Koran? Do they revere Muhammed?
The politicians paraded "Muslim-American" [sic] leaders in front of
the cameras. We heard lots of preaching about "Islam is a religion of
peace." It turns out, more than one of them was praising the
terrorist group Hamas weeks before.
Dirk Bruere
"Milton John Kleim, Jr." <mj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64218a5b.01100...@posting.google.com...
> peace." It turns out, more than one of them was praising the
> terrorist group Hamas weeks before.
So, do you consider Hamas to be terrorists because they consider all
Israelis who are in illegal occupation of their homeland (the 'Occupied
Territories') to be targets?
If the US had been conquered by Soviet forces, would you consider colonists
from the USSR to be legitimate targets?
FFF
Dirk
Redwolf
To the other newsgroups listed on this message from Milton we need to go
over some basic information. As listed on the Nikzor site, Milton is a
failed Nazi, not because he decided to turn against racism, fear, and hate,
basically he just wore out his welcome.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/k/kleim-milton/
Do not bite on his claims to be a heathen or a pagan. He and others are
looking to use the current situation to spread fear and hate. He is no more
a heathen or a pagan than the chair you are sitting on.
He is not a representative of the Asatru community. He is not what it is to
be a Heathen or a Pagan. It is unfortunate that he is chosen to add your
newsgroups to his messages of fear and hate. This person should be
considered an Utlander (outsider) to our communities. Please do not respond
to his posts.
May the gods walk with us
Mike
"Milton John Kleim, Jr." <mj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64218a5b.01100...@posting.google.com...
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> Well, Milton, hate to burst your little bubble but you ought to read
> Jewish law. Says that girls as yopung as 3 are marriageable because at
> that age, their virginity can be guaranteed. Do Jewish people marry
> off their daughters at that age? No. You need to consider that thing
> were different then.
Such traditions that are out of date and outside of ethical behavior
need to be shit-canned.
BTW, we're not talking about Jewish law. We're talking about the
driving totalitarian ideology of the Enemy, Islam.
> Lots of religions have things in them that we consider weird or perverted.
Weird is ok. Perverted is ok, if it doesn't hurt anyone else, and
it's not shoved in my face.
> In ancient Ireland, the king had to mate with a white mare.
Source?
> That's pretty weird too me, but I don't go out condemning Irish people for
> it.
Let's say that what you say is a correct interpretation of that
legend. Are you going to try to say molesting a little girl is its
equivalent? I think not. The horse can defend itself.
> So why don't you take your sick, racist little peabrain elsewhere, eh?
Sorry you don't like dealing with inconvenient facts.
As a Euro-Heathen of the Asatru, Druid, and Romuvan traditions, I plan
to stick around.
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> Do I smell judgemental fundamentalist Pagan??
As the step-father of a survivor of molestation, I will by gods
most certainly be "judgmental" about such horrors.
Do you approve of child molestation? Do you stand by when wrongdoing
happens and do nothing, say nothing?
"Fundamentalist"? What exactly does that mean?
Ray McIntyre
(any one will do) and you interpret that way those folk lived their lives in
accord with todays' moral and ethical standards.
So Mr Kleim is angry because Muhammad married a 6 year old, he does not seem
to understand that that was accaeptable THEN, do Muslims marry 6 year olds
today?, times change, people change, as do their standards of what is
considered ethical behaviour.
Do I blame the Greeks because a Greek state (Sparta) used to expose any
children who were considered to be not "normal" to the elements and wild
animals? Do I blame modern Maori because some of their ancestors ate other
people?
If i am not willing to do this, why should I consider Muhammad a child
abuser for acting according to the ethical standards of his matrix. If he
was alive NOW, it might well be a very different matter, but he is not!
However, I have noted the Mr Kleim seemingly hates anything he cannot
understand, so I expect to have what I have written fall on deaf ears.
Kiwimac
Jennifer Martin
point me toward the passages about the child molestation. It's not that I
want to drag this out, I just want to see it for myself.
And I just feel the need to remind that there are two main branches of
Islam, the Sunni and the Shi'ite. The Sunni are vast majority (over 90%)
and deplore violence.
I'm sure as a group, we respect the idea that child molestation is evil,
wrong, and should not be tolerated, but like RedBear said, life was very
different back then.
Now I can't control what you say, how you say, or even where you say it. I
only ask one thing: If you quote a major published work, please include
where you found it. I'm sure we would all like to have complete context.
Milton John Kleim, Jr. <mj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64218a5b.01100...@posting.google.com...
Kevin Jones
> redb...@bigmailbox.net (RedBear) wrote:
>
> > In ancient Ireland, the king had to mate with a white mare.
>
> Source?
Gildas Cambrensis, quoting an Irish informant. The people concerned were a
northern branch of the Ui Niall, I believe. It shows marked parallels with
the archaic Vedic ritual where a queen ritually mated with a stallion.
Kevin
RedBear
about child abuse and they did cite where it was found, but my brain
is foggy on that part. My point was that what was acceptable then, is
not acceptable now. To judge by todays standards does not always
work...
Daibhi <dao...@nospambs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.162bfa6a9...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
Bright Thunder
Niall
Fredric L. Rice
> Do I smell judgemental fundamentalist Pagan??
Paul/Saul, the Terrorist of Tarsus, also had problems
with females. Look at the deadly cult _he_ created.
--
http://www.SkepticTank.ORG/ http://www.KeithHenson.ORG/
http://www.SkepticFiles.ORG/ http://www.SlatkinFraud.COM/
http://www.RaulLopez.ORG/ http://www.RonTheNut.ORG/
http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ http://www.CrackPots.ORG/
http://www.ToryMagoo.ORG/ http://www.HolySmoke.ORG/
http://www.Xenu.NET/ http://www.Raids.ORG/ http://www.Nots.ORG/
http://www.MoneyCult.ORG/
Odin Wulf
co-exist, and they DID co-marry and mate .... WE, you, me and everyone else
except for a small tribe in SOUTH africa ... are all partially Neadrathal. now,
Neadrathal .... were one of the first to eat bone marrow ... they would split
open the bones and suck out the marrow... and they left "garbage" dumps ...
where they threw the bones ...
within the pile of bones found .... were Neadrathal bones ... split open, in the
same manner of the animal bones ... the marrow sucked out ...
our ancestors were cannibals.
Now, to use milton's logic ... "DO YOU AGREE WITH CANNIBALISM? WE ALL SHOULD BE
SHOT AND KILLED!!!!"
Kavar The Neadrathal Man
"Milton John Kleim, Jr." wrote:
Odin Wulf
Are you so stupid as to NOT realize that what you claim their Koran declares
to do to us, YOU are declaring we should do to them?
In the famous words of every parent talking to a 12 yr old boy ... "GROW
UP!"
You're acting like a CHILD ... my god ... i'm ashamed i'm actually REPLYING to
you ... you should be sent to your room without dinner... your like throwing a
little temper tantrom ... "MOMMY!!! THE KORAN SAID THEY ARE GOING TO KILL
US!!!!! WAAAAAAA" ...
For Bauldr's sake, shut up.
Kavar Kleim, Sr.
"Milton John Kleim, Jr." wrote:
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> we are all decented of the Neadrathal man ... Homo Sapien and Neadrathal DID
> co-exist, and they DID co-marry and mate .... WE, you, me and everyone else
> except for a small tribe in SOUTH africa ... are all partially Neadrathal.
I'm glad you're so certain of that.
> now,
> Neadrathal .... were one of the first to eat bone marrow ... they would split
> open the bones and suck out the marrow... and they left "garbage" dumps ...
> where they threw the bones ...
> within the pile of bones found .... were Neadrathal bones ... split open, in
> thesame manner of the animal bones ... the marrow sucked out ...
> our ancestors were cannibals.
> Now, to use milton's logic ... "DO YOU AGREE WITH CANNIBALISM? WE ALL SHOULD
> BE SHOT AND KILLED!!!!"
No, I don't agree with cannibalism, and any modern cannibals SHOULD be
shot.
I find it amusing that you use the Neanderthal analogy as a followup
to the discussion of the pedophile Muhammed's six-year wife.
Like Neanderthal behavior, civilized people also shit-can "religions"
like Islam.
Milton John Kleim, Jr.
> Are you so stupid as to NOT realize that what you claim their Koran
> declares to do to us, YOU are declaring we should do to them?
We are not the aggressor/perpetrator.
If a murderer comes to kill your family, do you sit idly by because in
your twisted mind to kill him would be "murder"?
Islam has declared war on America and our Way of Life, and once we
recognize that Islam believes we are at war with it, even if our
leaders claim we're not, it will be better for everyone.
RBrac53660
>
>If a murderer comes to kill your family, do you sit idly by because in
>your twisted mind to kill him would be "murder"?
>
>Islam has declared war on America and our Way of Life, and once we
>recognize that Islam believes we are at war with it, even if our
>leaders claim we're not, it will be better for everyone.
>
>
Nuts you are just simply nuts. The "war" is an effort to get rid of neo
fascist like you.
Wade Baugher
absolutely no discernable genetic evidence to support the
belief that any groups of Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals
and prospered (though individual instances may have taken place).
Homo sapiens are genetically 100% Homo sapiens.
Interpreting ancient bones is a tricky field. We have no idea
exactly why they did what they did. they might have been using
the marrow as a paint base. There is a big brouhaha in the southwest
USA over a recent declaration by an anthropologist who made
headlines by stating that the Anastazi (sp?) were cannibals. He based
his conclusions on bone marks and such.
Care must be taken when making such declarations as exhumation,
de-fleshing, mummification and various other funerary rites were common
among the ancients.
--
Wade
"Odin Wulf" <odin...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BC53F02...@verizon.net...
Fredric L. Rice
> The last technical article I read on the subject stated there is
> absolutely no discernable genetic evidence to support the
> belief that any groups of Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals
> and prospered (though individual instances may have taken place).
> Homo sapiens are genetically 100% Homo sapiens.
How utterly silly. I'm tempted to think that perhaps you're
a SubGeni playing pretend with Big Foot but it may just be
your ignorance you're exhibiting.
A trip to your local library will set you straight.
vanda
<xremove...@home.com> put finger to key and barely tapped out:
~The last technical article I read on the subject stated there is
~absolutely no discernable genetic evidence to support the
~belief that any groups of Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals
~and prospered (though individual instances may have taken place).
~Homo sapiens are genetically 100% Homo sapiens.
While this may or may not be true, I'm just curious...
Who are you trying to prove this to?
Have I missed something?
Last I heard the neanderthals dissappeared by breeding with
homosapiens. Perhaps that strain of homosapien was weak and died off.
Who have they tested to prove there is no neanderthal in the human
race at this moment?
Seems to me scientists don't know jack shit and merely speculate.
Then they change their speculations at a later date by saying "New
evidence points to (blank)".
Laura!
Jetzt bin ich leicht,
jetzt fliege ich,
jetzt sehe ich mich unter mir,
jetzt tanzt ein Gott durch mich.
~Nietzsche
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ONO/OCC
www.knology.net/~vanda
www.catatonicstudios.com
Dirk Bruere
"vanda" <vand...@yeehaw.com> wrote in message
news:lcubst0nud1ol69ut...@4ax.com...
> ~The last technical article I read on the subject stated there is
> ~absolutely no discernable genetic evidence to support the
> ~belief that any groups of Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals
> ~and prospered (though individual instances may have taken place).
> ~Homo sapiens are genetically 100% Homo sapiens.
>
> While this may or may not be true, I'm just curious...
> Who are you trying to prove this to?
> Have I missed something?
>
> Last I heard the neanderthals dissappeared by breeding with
> homosapiens. Perhaps that strain of homosapien was weak and died off.
> Who have they tested to prove there is no neanderthal in the human
> race at this moment?
> Seems to me scientists don't know jack shit and merely speculate.
> Then they change their speculations at a later date by saying "New
> evidence points to (blank)".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_967000/967119.stm
FFF
Dirk
Deb Foisy
> Association at the University of Southern California, hardly a
> "biased" source...
>
>
> http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html
>
>
> Sahih Muslim
>
> The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)
>
> Book 008, Number 3310:
>
> "'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
> peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
> admitted to his house when I was nine years old."
Man, this is such an old saw though it's been a while since the last
time I heard it used to promote religious intolerance. You want to
paint him that way, as a pedophile, you have to start making a very
long list of names to add to the list of those similarly described.
He married her, which says nothing about consumating (maybe that was
when she was 9). That's the first thing. Second, it was common
practice to marry children that young. It was done right into the
middle ages. Arthur married Katherine of Aragon while they were both
children, so did Mary Stuart marry Francis-the Dauphin of France. All
that Braveheart romance between Edward II's wife and Wallace? Never
Happend, she was round about the ago of a toddler then, though I
haven't checked exactly how old she was.
Item three, girls matured earlier in those days. It's quite possible
she could have begun her menses at 9. Making her a "woman"
D.
Lou Cypher
picnics. After a few kegs
I believe I have seen actual inter-breeding taking place on a pile of
greasey cracked rib bones. I'm suprised there isn't a Neo Neanderthal
movement.
Wade Baugher
--
Wade
> "Dirk Bruere" wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_967000/967119.stm
>
> FFF
> Dirk
Owl
Neanderthal DNA to several groups of modern humans, and determined
statistically that the matches ruled out interbreeding. A completely
different study looked at some fossils of early humans (might have been
Aurignacian, but I don't remember) in SW Europe, and determined that
they indicated many generations of interbreeding.
Who knows? They might both be right. The Neanderthal connection may be
only to a few groups of modern humans, or maybe that line died out long
ago. We don't know if they were really a separate species, or if they
were just a distinct race of humans.
Odin Wulf
those are highly religious POLITICAL groups .... its not the ENTIRETY of
islam, you dullard. If a bunch of Catholics get together and attack a bunch
of pagans, does that mean the POPE HIMSELF declared war? that ALL of
catholicism declared war?
Which rock did YOU crawl out of, and who was the idiot who kicked it
over? *looks at the regular people in the group* ok, 'fess up, who kicked the
rock?
Kavar
"Milton John Kleim, Jr." wrote:
vanda
<art...@kbnet.co.uk> put finger to key and barely tapped out:
~
~"vanda" <vand...@yeehaw.com> wrote in message
~news:lcubst0nud1ol69ut...@4ax.com...
~> ~The last technical article I read on the subject stated there is
~> ~absolutely no discernable genetic evidence to support the
~> ~belief that any groups of Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals
~> ~and prospered (though individual instances may have taken place).
~> ~Homo sapiens are genetically 100% Homo sapiens.
~>
~> While this may or may not be true, I'm just curious...
~> Who are you trying to prove this to?
~> Have I missed something?
~>
~> Last I heard the neanderthals dissappeared by breeding with
~> homosapiens. Perhaps that strain of homosapien was weak and died
off.
~> Who have they tested to prove there is no neanderthal in the human
~> race at this moment?
~> Seems to me scientists don't know jack shit and merely speculate.
~> Then they change their speculations at a later date by saying "New
~> evidence points to (blank)".
~
~http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_967000/967119.stm
Inconclusive article.
Speculative.
And that article still doesn't completely discount interbreeding.
~Dirk
~
Rave669
History Channel?) about Neanderthal man. According to the
archaeologists, anthropologists and sociologists involved in the
program, Neandertal and the forefathers of modern man (Was it
Australiopithicus? is that it? My memory fails me) co-existed for quite
some time after their slightly more-enlightened cousins crossed the land
bridges to other continents.
Apparently, according to this well made program, they did occasionaly
skirmish, but for the most part, they left each other alone. Eventually,
because these strangers were more adaptable than the Neanderthal man
(more skilled with tools, weaponsmithing, and communicating ideas) they
outlasted the neanderthal through natural selection (and probably made
for tough competition for food).
While Neandrthal is considered by many to be a less-evolved version of a
modern human, in recent years, authorities have concluded that they were
more advanced than previously believed, having learned to make fire,
ritual burials for the dead, as well as specialized toolmaking skills
that were previously undiscovered.
However, their competition had the ability to improvise far more, thus
improving the existing abilities of their forebearers with each
generation. Apparently, Neanderthal wasn't as good as that, but
excavation of sites turn up neanderthal-made relics that seemed to copy
skills of the other tribes of man in that day. Were they beginning to
learn? maybe they were as we say today "a bit slow", but who knows how
far they could've gone if strangers never came to their land. Maybe the
new presence forced them to adapt; we may never know for sure.
Even today, different types of people have problems getting along, so it
wouldn't suprise me in the least if another culture killed them off out
of spite, but from the evidence at hand, they apparently co-existed with
some aprehension. They may have even crossbred, but more likely, the
tribe mentalities of those involved back then may have discouraged this,
but hey, anything is possible.
Anybody got a time machine so we can find out what really happened? if
so, let me know because I for one would be curious about what really
happened =P
As for Neanderthal being an early form of man, The jury is still out on
that. Any being (or animal) with at low as a 7% variance from the human
genome is considered a different species. It's a matter of whether
people still consider Neanderthal man Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens.
needless to say, the remains we have found to date provide no DNA
evidence to confirm or deny the fact as to wheter or not they were
directly related to us (bones that old are petrified; all biological
material is replaced by sedimentary deposits until the bones are nothing
more than stone replicas) Looking at the bone stucture provides a clue,
but sadly, not much else.
One thing is certain, they were more like modern man than most people
like to admit.
-Eric Lindstrom
Les Griswold
Rave669 (rav...@usa.net) writes:
> I recently saw a great TV program on the Discovery Channel (or was it
> History Channel?) about Neanderthal man. According to the
> archaeologists, anthropologists and sociologists involved in the
> program, Neandertal and the forefathers of modern man (Was it
> Australiopithicus? is that it? My memory fails me) co-existed for quite
> some time after their slightly more-enlightened cousins crossed the land
> bridges to other continents.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember Australopithecus existing at the
same time as Neanderthal Man. If memory serves, I believe that Homo
Erectus was the guilty party (well, that and Filet Magnon man).
Les!
vanda
finger to key and barely tapped out:
~From what I've read, there are two different answers. One study
compared
~Neanderthal DNA to several groups of modern humans, and determined
~statistically that the matches ruled out interbreeding. A completely
~different study looked at some fossils of early humans (might have
been
~Aurignacian, but I don't remember) in SW Europe, and determined that
~they indicated many generations of interbreeding.
~
~Who knows? They might both be right. The Neanderthal connection may
be
~only to a few groups of modern humans, or maybe that line died out
long
~ago. We don't know if they were really a separate species, or if they
~were just a distinct race of humans.
Careful, that is what I said and they got their panties in a bunch.
~
~Wade Baugher wrote:
~>
~> The last technical article I read on the subject stated there is
~> absolutely no discernable genetic evidence to support the
~> belief that any groups of Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals
~> and prospered (though individual instances may have taken place).
~> Homo sapiens are genetically 100% Homo sapiens.
~>
~> Interpreting ancient bones is a tricky field. We have no idea
~> exactly why they did what they did. they might have been using
~> the marrow as a paint base. There is a big brouhaha in the
southwest
~> USA over a recent declaration by an anthropologist who made
~> headlines by stating that the Anastazi (sp?) were cannibals. He
based
~> his conclusions on bone marks and such.
~>
~> Care must be taken when making such declarations as exhumation,
~> de-fleshing, mummification and various other funerary rites were
common
~> among the ancients.
~> --
~> Wade
Wade Baugher
interpretation, was their conservatism. The evidence seems
to suggest they lived in the same caves, stayed to the same
hunting ranges, ate the same foods, and used the same tools
for a tens of thousand years, while the competing species
(humans) got out more (wanderlust), took culinary risks, and
showed remarkable advances in their tools and other materials
over a similar period (probably because they got out more).
IIRC the most recent Neanderthal find was as little as 25,000
years ago - so they certainly co-existed with modern humans
for a long period.
The genetic evidence seems to suggest there were no lines that
interbred and prospered. Which is not the same as saying it
never happened.
--
Wade
"Rave669" <rav...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3BC698...@usa.net...
The 9th Witch
Les Griswold <eg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9q6gen$427$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
In the Grand Scheme of things, does any of this really matter? Just
curious....
T9W
vanda
<appalach...@hotsnail.com> put finger to key and barely tapped
out:
~
~Les Griswold <eg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
~news:9q6gen$427$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
~>
~> Rave669 (rav...@usa.net) writes:
~> > I recently saw a great TV program on the Discovery Channel (or
was it
~> > History Channel?) about Neanderthal man. According to the
~> > archaeologists, anthropologists and sociologists involved in the
~> > program, Neandertal and the forefathers of modern man (Was it
~> > Australiopithicus? is that it? My memory fails me) co-existed for
quite
~> > some time after their slightly more-enlightened cousins crossed
the land
~> > bridges to other continents.
~>
~> I could be wrong, but I don't remember Australopithecus existing at
the
~> same time as Neanderthal Man. If memory serves, I believe that
Homo
~> Erectus was the guilty party (well, that and Filet Magnon man).
~>
~> Les!
~>
~
~In the Grand Scheme of things, does any of this really matter? Just
~curious....
I was wondering what the point of posting this in ARW anyway?
There was no arguement going on...no one questioned neanderthals
disappearance or anything.
I guess I just wasn't in a bitchy enough mood when I replied
originally because I wrote the above and changed it.
Owl
misspelled Neanderthal. Didn't get much argument on it, either.
This may be a NG first, when a CG thread becomes an intelligent
discussion.
Anyway, to keep it going...
I have a 1996 book on Paleolithic art that lists Neanderthals (H.
sapiens neanderthalensis) and Cro-Magnons (H. sapiens sapiens)as
overlapping between 35,000 and 40,000 years ago, during the
Chatelperronian period. By then, Neanderthal technology was fairly
sophisticated, and used stone blades (like the Cro-Magnons.) However,
although the Neanderthals did perform ritual burials and were able to
shape stone pretty well, they never developed figurative art.
I think it's fascinating that the start of "modern" humans meant the
beginning of art and music. (Ok, maybe bone flutes aren't your style,
but they count.) Especially since we know that other species, from
chimpanzees to crows, use tools, it's nice to know there is really
something that is truly human. And that something is the creating of
beauty.
The 9th Witch
> ~In the Grand Scheme of things, does any of this really matter? Just
> ~curious....
>
> I was wondering what the point of posting this in ARW anyway?
> There was no arguement going on...no one questioned neanderthals
> disappearance or anything.
> I guess I just wasn't in a bitchy enough mood when I replied
> originally because I wrote the above and changed it.
> Laura!
Oh, my question wasn't about the validity of the topic or something such. I
am always curious when people discuss things that can not be altered or
duplicated. Like Neanderthals or dinosaurs, or even the big bang theory..
Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people that
enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about computers that
you can?'
Is that the answer? Just because...?
T9W
Searles ODubhain
Usually people study other people so that they can improve how they
themselves live or survive. One does not have to make a mistake personally
to learn from the mistakes of others (or for that matter from their
successes). That's part of the worth of studying anything.
Searles
"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotsnail.com> wrote in message
news:JaXx7.33$vG.16...@news.incc.net...
>
<snip>
>
> Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people that
> enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
>
<snip>
vanda
finger to key and barely tapped out:
~It started with some Clueless Git mouthing off about how he was a
~misspelled Neanderthal. Didn't get much argument on it, either.
~
~This may be a NG first, when a CG thread becomes an intelligent
~discussion.
~
~Anyway, to keep it going...
~
~I have a 1996 book on Paleolithic art that lists Neanderthals (H.
~sapiens neanderthalensis) and Cro-Magnons (H. sapiens sapiens)as
~overlapping between 35,000 and 40,000 years ago, during the
~Chatelperronian period. By then, Neanderthal technology was fairly
~sophisticated, and used stone blades (like the Cro-Magnons.) However,
~although the Neanderthals did perform ritual burials and were able to
~shape stone pretty well, they never developed figurative art.
~
Ahh, I forgot the cro mags.
That is who I thought interbred with the neanderthals.
Hw do you pronounce neanderthal? Brittish programming in the US
pronounces the last syllable as 'tal' and in the US we say 'thal'.
~I think it's fascinating that the start of "modern" humans meant the
~beginning of art and music. (Ok, maybe bone flutes aren't your style,
~but they count.) Especially since we know that other species, from
~chimpanzees to crows, use tools, it's nice to know there is really
~something that is truly human. And that something is the creating of
~beauty.
Yes, the use of tools shows intelligence, but implementing them for
purely creative purposes is a highly specialized trait.
The only thing which separates us from the animals is our unique
ability to accessorize. hehe.
vanda
~My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about
computers that
~you can?'
~
~Is that the answer? Just because...?
~
I learn because I believe it is useful to know.
Actually, I find topics like the big bang/dinosaurs and such less
interesting only because it is mostly speculation.
If actual facts are discovered then the topic becomes a fascination.
It is like worrying...it doesn't change anything. So I don't worry.
But is something is bugging me and I can change it, I do.
Laura!
Dirk Bruere
I
> am always curious when people discuss things that can not be altered or
> duplicated. Like Neanderthals or dinosaurs, or even the big bang theory..
> Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people that
> enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
> My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about computers
that
> you can?'
> Is that the answer? Just because...?
No.
School etc is about learning how to learn.
The fact that some of the examples given for practice come in handy later eg
reading and writing, is beside the main point.
If you don't know how to learn, you're a dead end in modern society.
Go to the back of the queue.
FFF
Dirk
sceadu
case. But I agree with the key point that the passage said nothing
about consumation. The fact that Kleim is sex-crazed and will use any
excuse to get some doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.
> >
> > What other "religion" on this Earth has a child molestor as its
> > founder?
Melisande
dbarrand, not
to you, sceadu (with whom I agree)
sceadu <sce...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:cc0f4fc9.01101...@posting.google.com...
> dbar...@hotmail.com (Deb Foisy) wrote in message
news:<d86dfbab.01101...@posting.google.com>...
> > mj...@yahoo.com (Milton John Kleim, Jr.) wrote in message
news:<64218a5b.01100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > The source of this is a reference page from the Muslim Students
> > > Association at the University of Southern California, hardly a
> > > "biased" source...
> > >
> > >
> > >
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Sahih Muslim
> > >
> > > The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah)
> > >
> > > Book 008, Number 3310:
> > >
> > > "'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may
> > > peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was
> > > admitted to his house when I was nine years old."
> >
> > Man, this is such an old saw though it's been a while since the last
> > time I heard it used to promote religious intolerance. You want to
> > paint him that way, as a pedophile, you have to start making a very
> > long list of names to add to the list of those similarly described.
> > He married her, which says nothing about consumating (maybe that was
> > when she was 9). That's the first thing.
You're saying it's okay for 56 year old men to have sex with 9 year olds.
Just
wanted to make that clear. I disagree. I am really struck by the number of
Americans who want complete tolerance (based on religion) (but not in their
own countries - where, if it were THEIR nine year old girl, they'd be really
upset).
Second, it was common
> > practice to marry children that young. It was done right into the
> > middle ages. Arthur married Katherine of Aragon while they were both
> > children, so did Mary Stuart marry Francis-the Dauphin of France.
Arthur married Katherine of Aragon?????? No he didn't. Arthur (if he
existed)
lived at least 400 years earlier than Katherine of Aragon (who married Henry
VIII).
When did they consummate, by the way? If I recall correctly, she was 19
when she
made the journey to England.
All
> > that Braveheart romance between Edward II's wife and Wallace? Never
> > Happend, she was round about the ago of a toddler then, though I
> > haven't checked exactly how old she was.
> > Item three, girls matured earlier in those days. It's quite possible
> > she could have begun her menses at 9.
This is complete bullshit. As an anthropologist and college professor who
specializing in the biology of human beings, and has taught for 13 years in
the
field, I can assure it it's QUITE THE OPPOSITE. It's not uncommon (still)
for women to reach menarche 17-18 in places that we would in the West call
"undeveloped." There are many theories on why. The best are coming from a
woman physician at Harvard, who has twice been nominated for the Nobel prize
in biology. Take some biology and history. You're completely wrong.
Making her a "woman"
> > D.
> Actually, girls are maturing earlier _now_. As early as eight, in some
> case. But I agree with the key point that the passage said nothing
> about consumation. The fact that Kleim is sex-crazed and will use any
> excuse to get some doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.
> > >
> > > What other "religion" on this Earth has a child molestor as its
> > > founder?
There are dozens of tribal religions around the world where adult males
molest
boys...start with reviewing the Sambia of New Guinea. The complex of
military/
male secret society/ male homosexual initiation / pedophilia is at the core
of
many primitive religions: Islam is an outgrowth of just such a sect.
> Sceadu
Steven T. Hatton
> Original post didn't show up on my reader, so am responding (mainly) to
> dbarrand, not
> to you, sceadu (with whom I agree)
I've noticed usenet replication seems to have been crutailed of late.
There seem to be many post not making it to and from my server, or lagging
by hours or even days.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free" CK
>
> sceadu <sce...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:cc0f4fc9.01101...@posting.google.com...
>> dbar...@hotmail.com (Deb Foisy) wrote in message
>> > Man, this is such an old saw though it's been a while since the last
>> > time I heard it used to promote religious intolerance. You want to
>> > paint him that way, as a pedophile, you have to start making a very
>> > long list of names to add to the list of those similarly described.
>> > He married her, which says nothing about consumating (maybe that was
>> > when she was 9). That's the first thing.
>
> You're saying it's okay for 56 year old men to have sex with 9 year olds.
> Just
> wanted to make that clear. I disagree. I am really struck by the number
> of Americans who want complete tolerance (based on religion) (but not in
> their own countries - where, if it were THEIR nine year old girl, they'd
> be really upset).
I haven't been following this thread, but unless there is some other place
where such a claim was made, I believe you are jumping to rather absurd
conclusions about the intent of Deb's words. I must say it seems to me you
are really reaching for something to hold against modern Islam. I have to
question your motives in this. What someone _may_ have done 1500 years ago
seems fairly irrelevant to the current state of affairs unless you can
demonstrate his followers agree with and condone your interpretation of
what happened.
> This is complete bullshit. As an anthropologist and college professor who
> specializing in the biology of human beings, and has taught for 13 years
> in the
> field, I can assure it it's QUITE THE OPPOSITE. It's not uncommon (still)
> for women to reach menarche 17-18 in places that we would in the West call
> "undeveloped." There are many theories on why. The best are coming from
> a woman physician at Harvard, who has twice been nominated for the Nobel
> prize
> in biology. Take some biology and history. You're completely wrong.
Well, that does contradict what I've read regarding the reproductive
biology of populations living under marginal conditions. I can't give you
any exact citations, it's been a decade or more since I read that, but I
feel confident it was from a reputable source - perhaps Worldwatch.
> There are dozens of tribal religions around the world where adult males
> molest
> boys...start with reviewing the Sambia of New Guinea. The complex of
> military/
> male secret society/ male homosexual initiation / pedophilia is at the
> core of
> many primitive religions: Islam is an outgrowth of just such a sect.
Sounds like the Roman Army. I wonder what the Pope thinks of your
observation.
>> Sceadu
--
Með frjálsu, Steven
What is Truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside
from Truth I could keep to the Truth and leave God. - Meister Eckhart
Deb Foisy
> Original post didn't show up on my reader, so am responding (mainly) to
> dbarrand, not
> to you, sceadu (with whom I agree)
>
>
> > > time I heard it used to promote religious intolerance. You want to
> > > paint him that way, as a pedophile, you have to start making a very
> > > long list of names to add to the list of those similarly described.
> > > He married her, which says nothing about consumating (maybe that was
> > > when she was 9). That's the first thing.
>
> You're saying it's okay for 56 year old men to have sex with 9 year olds.
I am saying nothing of the kind. I did say that in those days, it
wasn't the same taboo it is now. NOTHING ELSE. There's this little
facet of studying history, it's called "presentism". What it
essentially comes down to is judging acts of history by the standards
we apply to behavior today. Calling Mohammed a pedophile, if he
consumated the marriage with a child that young is sure as hell
presentism. It was NOT unusual to do the early marriage thing, well
past the time of Mohammed. John Knox married a girl fairly young,
though I think she was in her teens. I'm not sure but I suspect he
was older than 56 too. Though that was pretty old in those days, when
life expectancy wasn't so great.
> Just
> wanted to make that clear. I disagree. I am really struck by the number of
> Americans who want complete tolerance (based on religion) (but not in their
> own countries - where, if it were THEIR nine year old girl, they'd be really
> upset).
In those days, it would be the girl's parents who arranged the
marriage, which kind of speaks to how things were viewed then and now.
Old men married young girls regularly. Young people were sometimes
married to each other and they were too young to consumate their
marriage. Prince Arthur did or didn't consumate his marriage to
Catherine of Aragon. She was about the same age as Arthur, but older
than Henry when she married him. If he didn't, some of the
speculation went to his being to young to do so, and dying before he
was old enough to. It is highly doubtful that Francis consumated his
marriage to Mary Stuart either, and she was older than him. Though
his lack of ability may have something to do with things other than
just his youth, at least according to Antonia Fraser.
>
> Second, it was common
> > > practice to marry children that young. It was done right into the
> > > middle ages. Arthur married Katherine of Aragon while they were both
> > > children, so did Mary Stuart marry Francis-the Dauphin of France.
>
> Arthur married Katherine of Aragon?????? No he didn't. Arthur (if he
> existed)
> lived at least 400 years earlier than Katherine of Aragon (who married Henry
> VIII).
> When did they consummate, by the way? If I recall correctly, she was 19
> when she
> made the journey to England.
I said Prince Arther, which would apparently seem to be above your
head. More than one dog named Pluto and all that. Arthur Tudor was
the Henry Tudor's older brother, and heir to the throne of England.
He died before his father did even, but it sure as hell wasn't 400
years before that. In 1501, she was 16. Arthur died in 1502, shortly
after his marriage to Katherine. She always claimed, and I believe
her, that they never consumated their marriage. It just became
convenient for Henry to claim so when he wore her out and she was past
childbearing, and he lusted for Ann Boleyn.
Till then, Henry was a devout man. He wouldn't have married her if
they had cosnumated, least I don't think so. He got the papal
dispensation and iirc it was based on the assertion that it wasn't
consumated.
>
> All
> > > that Braveheart romance between Edward II's wife and Wallace? Never
> > > Happend, she was round about the ago of a toddler then, though I
> > > haven't checked exactly how old she was.
> > > Item three, girls matured earlier in those days. It's quite possible
> > > she could have begun her menses at 9.
>
> This is complete bullshit. As an anthropologist and college professor who
> specializing in the biology of human beings, and has taught for 13 years in
> the
> field, I can assure it it's QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
That's open to debate, and I took anthropolgoy too. AS an
anthropolgist, you should know that there are different types of
anthropology, i.e cultural and physical. I have read in reputable
historical texts that women matured earlier then, in part based on the
life span being shorter. I'm not going to argue with you, because the
bottom line is that it was acceptable culturally then, whether a woman
was a girl or a woman in the true sense of the word.
It's not uncommon (still)
> for women to reach menarche 17-18 in places that we would in the West call
> "undeveloped." There are many theories on why. The best are coming from a
> woman physician at Harvard, who has twice been nominated for the Nobel prize
> in biology. Take some biology and history. You're completely wrong.
I'm not as wrong as you seem to be, with Prince Arthur being dead 400
years. I will look for the reference, and until I find it, agree to
disagree. Except to say that you can't make such a rigid claim. You
have had access to an actual individual woman of that era, you know
this for a scientific fact based on what exactly?
>
> Making her a "woman"
> > > D.
> > Actually, girls are maturing earlier _now_. As early as eight, in some
> > case. But I agree with the key point that the passage said nothing
> > about consumation. The fact that Kleim is sex-crazed and will use any
> > excuse to get some doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.
> > > >
> > > > What other "religion" on this Earth has a child molestor as its
> > > > founder?
>
> There are dozens of tribal religions around the world where adult males
> molest
> boys...start with reviewing the Sambia of New Guinea. The complex of
> military/
> male secret society/ male homosexual initiation / pedophilia is at the core
> of
> many primitive religions: Islam is an outgrowth of just such a sect.
While we're at it, since your so hot to condemn me and the notion that
it was socially acceptable then, how bout all those Royals of Europe?
All the incest? Nobody finds that acceptable today, yet it was done
then, and the consequences of it were pretty obvious. My saying that
it was acceptable then, does that mean I'm for incest now? I think
not. You're a sorry anthropolgist if you're unable to see that what
might be unacceptable now could have been an acceptable norm then.
D
>
> > Sceadu
FeetOnFire
me tell you what I think. First, one passage is being taken out of
context for the sake of an argument and for someone to rant publicly
rather than deal with their person issues. That's always easier. Look,
if you were a victim of molestation, for your benefit and the benefit
of others around you, please get some help to deal with that terrible
experience rather than taking out on the world. Second, I don't
believe by your rantings that you are an anthropologist. Of course on
the internet you can be anybody. Thirdly, life spans were shorter then
and arranged marriages were common. Can you imagine being considered
an adult at the age of thirteen? You are taking one tiny piece of the
text and the time period and pulling it out of context for the sake of
ranting about your personal issues that you were apparently not
dealing with. Just because a young girl was married to him at age six
does not mean they were schtupping or even cohabitating at that point.
In any case, please get some counseling for your own sake and leave
your issues out of public, intelectual debates. People will respect
you more.
cheers,
--artcriminal
dbar...@hotmail.com (Deb Foisy) wrote in message news:<d86dfbab.01101...@posting.google.com>...
Bob
Lets compare with Christianity. Throughout the Middle Ages, Cannon Law (The Roman Catholic Church dictate and
generally the law of Western Europe) prohibited marriage of girls less than 7 years old. Before you condemn those
of other cultures in previous centuries it is wise to look at your own history. A bride of 9 years would have
been relatively common and certainly not illegal or ever raise an eyebrow in most of Western Europe at the same
time.
Whatever you think of Islam, the "child bride" of Mohammed was in keeping with very wide spread custom of his
time. Most Americans today would be upset with the marriage of a 9yo girl, but their own European ancestors of
the Middle Ages probably married that young and thought nothing of it. After all, Christian moral law of the time
allowed European girls to marry after age 7. I doubt if European pagan morals were any different for age to
marry in those centuries.
Bob
Joshua Roper
The 9th Witch wrote:
>
>
> Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people that
> enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
>
> My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about computers that
> you can?'
>
> Is that the answer? Just because...?
*grin*
As a history teacher, let me recite a quotation that I am sure many of
us have heard. Not sure who said it first, but I have heard it
attributed to Robert E. Lee, George Washington, and even Vergil, among
others.
"Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
Come to think of it, most of the folks who DO repeat it have studied it
thoroughly enough to get their sick and twisted ideas :)
Okay, guys..here is the first entry in Josh's revised Quotations:
"Those who have learned history with the wrong mindset are REALLY
FUCKING DANGEROUS!!" ;)
Just my daily rant,
- Joshua
The 9th Witch
Joshua Roper <jro...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:3BCFDB61...@netdoor.com...
>
>
> The 9th Witch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people that
> > enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
> >
> > My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about computers
that
> > you can?'
> >
> > Is that the answer? Just because...?
>
> *grin*
>
> As a history teacher, let me recite a quotation that I am sure many of
> us have heard. Not sure who said it first, but I have heard it
> attributed to Robert E. Lee, George Washington, and even Vergil, among
> others.
>
> "Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
May I ask, how could this bit of history be repeated? Are you hiding
Neanderthals in your pocket?
>
> Come to think of it, most of the folks who DO repeat it have studied it
> thoroughly enough to get their sick and twisted ideas :)
>
> Okay, guys..here is the first entry in Josh's revised Quotations:
>
> "Those who have learned history with the wrong mindset are REALLY
> FUCKING DANGEROUS!!" ;)
I do agree, thoroughly. They are like people who don't learn from their
mistakes.
T9W
Vanda
considered running, but paused to say:
~
~
~The 9th Witch wrote:
~>
~>
~> Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people
that
~> enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
~>
~> My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about
computers that
~> you can?'
~>
~> Is that the answer? Just because...?
~
~*grin*
~
~As a history teacher, let me recite a quotation that I am sure many
of
~us have heard. Not sure who said it first, but I have heard it
~attributed to Robert E. Lee, George Washington, and even Vergil,
among
~others.
~
~"Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
~
Dommed?
Geeze I really hate being dommed.
Oh, right, you said history, not english.
Rev. N.A.G.
"Vanda" <vand...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:v1h3ttov1uo59u04i...@4ax.com...
Bahahahahaha!
Allrightythen. :)
/nik
--
ONO/OCC/EAC
"Out on the road today I saw a DeadHead sticker on a Cadillac. A little
voice inside my head said "don't look back, you can never go back"
Vanda
considered running, but paused to say:
~
~"Vanda" <vand...@yahooo.com> wrote in message
~news:v1h3ttov1uo59u04i...@4ax.com...
~> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 07:49:24 GMT, Joshua Roper <jro...@netdoor.com>
~> considered running, but paused to say:
~>
~> ~
~> ~
~> ~The 9th Witch wrote:
~> ~>
~> ~>
~> ~> Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are
people
~> that
~> ~> enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
~> ~>
~> ~> My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about
~> computers that
~> ~> you can?'
~> ~>
~> ~> Is that the answer? Just because...?
~> ~
~> ~*grin*
~> ~
~> ~As a history teacher, let me recite a quotation that I am sure
many
~> of
~> ~us have heard. Not sure who said it first, but I have heard it
~> ~attributed to Robert E. Lee, George Washington, and even Vergil,
~> among
~> ~others.
~> ~
~> ~"Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
~> ~
~>
~> Dommed?
~> Geeze I really hate being dommed.
~
~Bahahahahaha!
~Allrightythen. :)
My parrot just got down from her cage, walked over, got herself a
piece of one of my orchids (a dendrobium), climbed back on top of her
cage and proceeded to eat the orchid!
DANG!
Silly parrot!!
Joshua Roper
The 9th Witch wrote:
>
> Joshua Roper <jro...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:3BCFDB61...@netdoor.com...
> >
> >
> > The 9th Witch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Some history needs to be learned, IMO, and I know there are people that
> > > enjoy all history immensely. I just wondered why...
> > >
> > > My son says 'Just because. Why do you learn everything about computers
> that
> > > you can?'
> > >
> > > Is that the answer? Just because...?
> >
> > *grin*
> >
> > As a history teacher, let me recite a quotation that I am sure many of
> > us have heard. Not sure who said it first, but I have heard it
> > attributed to Robert E. Lee, George Washington, and even Vergil, among
> > others.
> >
> > "Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
>
> May I ask, how could this bit of history be repeated? Are you hiding
> Neanderthals in your pocket?
Nah, I keep 'em on a chain in the front yard. They help ward off evil
Christians :) It must be all those Satanic cave-drawings.
Joshua
Joshua Roper
Vanda wrote:
>
> ~
> ~"Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
> ~
>
> Dommed?
> Geeze I really hate being dommed.
>
> Oh, right, you said history, not english.
LOL...riiiiiight, like youve never made a typo in your life, eh? :)
(Note to self: history has taught me to proofread.)
The 9th Witch
May I borrow one or two. I promise not to interbreed, but we are having
trouble with some teenagers, you see....
Wei Fong can't stay out all night, as he is needed inside for......"other
things"....
T9W
Vanda
considered running, but paused to say:
~
~
~Vanda wrote:
~>
~> ~
~> ~"Those who are ignorant of history are dommed to repeat it."
~> ~
~>
~> Dommed?
~> Geeze I really hate being dommed.
~>
~> Oh, right, you said history, not english.
~
~LOL...riiiiiight, like youve never made a typo in your life, eh? :)
~
~(Note to self: history has taught me to proofread.)
Of course I have.
But that doesn't mean I can't be like everyone else and slam someone
for the same mistakes I've made.
Besides...I thought being dommed was funny. Think about it!
Joshua Roper
would be fun being dommed. Have you ever considered being dommed by
Neanderthals? :)
-jr
Vanda
considered running, but paused to say:
~Personally, I like domming _others_, but I can definitely see how it
~would be fun being dommed. Have you ever considered being dommed by
~Neanderthals? :)
Yes, but they are so elusive.
Went searching for Big Foot once. That didn't work either.
What's a girl to do?