It was until the D.C. Transit company started grumbling about all the wear & tear on the front shocks that increased their maintenance costs. Ottawa transit is having the same problem. It seems senators are especially hard on bus suspension systems.

I guess my Freudian slip was showing. Much as I may sympathize with the plight of roasting birds of any species, I'd really like to see those Gestapo-like DHS birds stew in their own juices.

National security should mean a lot more than buying swat teams & Blackhawk helicopters to terrorize & kill the creditors who paid for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Murphy

Turns out she and her husband were murdered and that there is a very suspicious DHS connection.

Sorry Stanley; my mind was already made up; the objective was to get people to take it seriously, not personally.



Good thing you don't bet...The more I learn, the less I know, so in all probability, I don't know what you think I know.



Gee...I was sure I wasn't confused at all, but now I'm confused...What was I confused about?

I guess NOW I'm off-topic eh?...Forgive the momentary digression, but the only crack I ever passed up was in Rob Ford's pipe.

In the "There but for the Grace of God go I" category, we have the latest news on Brittany Murphy:

Brittany Murphy Did NOT Die of Natural Causes, Lab Report Shows

November 16, 2013 by POPEYE

(JULIA DAVIS) Shocking new developments in the re-investigation of Brittany Murphy’s untimely demise confirm her father’s long-standing suspicions of a possible poisoning. Angelo Bertolotti never believed the conclusion of the LA Coroner that both Brittany and her husband Simon Monjack died of natural causes (pneumonia and anemia), five months apart.

After years of litigation and obstruction, Brittany’s father secured the release of her hair, blood and tissues for independent testing. Based on the symptoms exhibited by Brittany and Simon shortly prior to their deaths, Mr. Bertolotti ordered testing for heavy metals and toxins. The Office of the Los Angeles Coroner admittedly did not test for any poisonous substances.

A father’s heart steered him in the right direction, since the tests confirmed Angelo Bertolotti’s worst suspicions. The lab report states, “Ten (10) of the heavy metals evaluated were detected at levels higher that the WHO [The World Health Organization] high levels. Testing the hair strand sample identified as” back of the head” we have detected ten (10) heavy metals at levels above the WHO high levels recommendation. If we were to eliminate the possibility of a simultaneous accidental heavy metals exposure to the sample donor then the only logical explanation would be an exposure to these metals (toxins) administered by a third party perpetrator with likely criminal intent.” (Emphasis added)

Heavy metals can be commonly found in rodenticides (chemicals that kill mice or rats) and insecticides. Symptoms of acute heavy metal poisoning in humans can include headache, dizziness, gastrointestinal, neurological, respiratory, or dermal symptoms such as abdominal cramps, tremors, tachycardia, sweating, disorientation, coughing, wheezing, congestion, and pneumonia. Brittany Murphy and Simon Monjack exhibited all of these symptoms prior to their untimely deaths. The levels of heavy metals detected in Brittany Murphy’s hair were from 2 to over 9 times higher than the levels set as “high” by The World Health Organization.

“Vicious rumors, spread by tabloids, unfairly smeared Brittany’s reputation,” said Angelo Bertolotti. “My daughter was neither anorexic nor a drug junkie, as they repeatedly implied. Brittany and Simon were ridiculed by The Hollywood Reporter, when they complained of being under surveillance and in fear for their lives. I will not rest until the truth about these tragic events is told. There will be justice for Brittany.�

http://www.federaljack.com/brittany-murphy-did-not-die-of-natural-causes-lab-report-shows/



Has anyone seen this movie?...It looks like it'd be well worth watching.:

http://topprioritymovie.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/TOP-PRIORITY-PRESS-KIT-PDF1.pdf

Working like a charm, which is good...If I can't fool ya, nobody can.

I should say that it's not in my nature to lie, so if I do, I'll always come clean about it in the end. I really don't like conning people the way governments & banksters do.

The topic of the thread is poor people and what serves to motivate/demotivate them (i.e. what makes them poor and can they get out of poverty) in the context of the society in which they live. This strikes to the heart of the values generally held by that society, so the moral lesson in my posts is entirely pertinent to the thread and not really off-topic at all.

The lesson wasn't specifically for you (so don't take it personally); it was for everyone, and it WAS a discussion that included current events (the tragedy of poverty in a wealthy nation) and it WAS "political" in that it was sly, cunning and deceptive (such is the nature of politics). The moral story was therefore relevant to the discussion, and aside from one allusion to a book of scripture (for its moral value), was not in the least "religious" (I made no suggestion that a man named Jesus ever really existed beyond the stories, and those stories may only be a mythical morality tale that I find most scripture to be.)

I don't think it cost anyone to get their free opinion, so I don't see how it was at anyone's expense. As far as what Jesus would think, I think he'd be pleased that someone else was trying to teach a moral lesson about the things people should really value and how we should all feel (and act on) our empathic duty to care for others who are less fortunate than ourselves.

BINGO!!...You win the kewpie doll!

Everybody makes a trinity of mind, body and soul.
a mature and wise mind can be considered the "Father" of the man (Son) and the loving and empathic heart makes a great "Holy Ghost" eh?

Submitted for your consideration: Those who have not yet grown up are called "Children of God"... so what does the child who grows up become?...either a man, or a God, or Both (in a Holy Trinity).

Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day.

When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts.

I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum.

My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy.

Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means)

About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is.

One doesn't have to be from another star or parallel dimension to be an alien. An alien is one who is not in the jurisdiction you're in. Presumably though, even aliens are in universal jurisdiction, just like us, so if one does you harm, or commits a crime against humanity, you could probably beam him over to the ICJ or ICC, unless he can hide out in a non-signatory sovereign country a la Kissinger, Bush, Cheney et al do in the US.

Rumor has it that despite their obviously inhuman propensities to abduct and torture like the grays, these people are not considered enemy aliens; just domestic ones.

Universal jurisdiction may or may not stand up against the "force field" protection of a rogue state, but if you're an alien, it can provide some force field protection against things like speeding tickets, driving without a licence, minimum wage laws, deportation etc. if you can avoid the dreaded "residency", "work visa/green card" or "landed immigrant" rays.

If you don't believe me, just ask any undocumented immigrant or gray alien. Neither one can be touched by the "laws" of a country's jurisdiction if they don't do any harm.

I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works.

He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell.

I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself.

I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did.

I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source.

It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover.

Now's the time to deluge them with emails & letters about what you think of the new FDA regulations...You've only got till the 22nd.

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2013/11/food-safety-modernization-act-end-of.html

He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment."

In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them.

As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin?

He gave it away when he still had a job and could still provide for his family. After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife).



He didn't blame the people, so much as a society structured to condition people to prefer monetary values over human ones.

Chomsky'��s Right: The New York Times'�� Latest Big Lie


More misleading half-truths from a paper too cowed by power and myth to tell the truth about U.S. foreign policy.

Never before have I written a column concerning nothing more than a pair of quotation marks. Then again, never until now have I seen the power of punctuation so perniciously deployed.

It is not a new trick. Very popular in hackdom during the Cold War decades. Enclose something in quotation marks and all between them is instantly de-legitimized; no argument or explanation need be made. Here, try it:

“… the Cuban ‘doctors’ sent to Angola…”

Or: “… Soviet-made ‘farm equipment’ in Portugal since its 1974 revolution…”

Well, they were doctors and it was farm equipment. In the latter category I sat in a Soviet tractor out in the Portuguese vineyards, and damn it if the camponês did not find it useful.

In the end, this kind of thing is simply passive aggression, my least favorite neurosis. No one actively lies such that one can confront and reveal. It is lying by misleading and by implication, so sending us off full of groundless conviction and prejudice.

In this case, we have the irresponsible use of inverted commas, as the Brits say, to shape national opinion on a question of vital importance. The question is Iran. And now to the supine, corrupted and corrupting organ.

You have taken a wild guess, and you are right. We have our familiar problem with our friends on Eighth Avenue, the New York Times, faithful servants of the sanctioned orthodoxy. I give these folks an “A” for clever disguise this time, and I flunk them in the professional ethics class. Simply shameful, this round of reckless chicanery.

Here is the situation.

As all know, a deal with Iran over its nuclear program is the biggest game going these days — an historic opportunity, as previously asserted in this space. Fumble this, and the Obama administration will go down as hopelessly moronic on the foreign-relations side.

You may know, too, that a round of talks between six world powers and the Iranians just hit a pothole. It is essential to understand why.

The paradox is apparent, not real. Knowing why reveals what a nation with imperial ambitions looks like when it is nearing exhaustion and would rather decline than shape up, re-imagine itself, and take a new and constructive place in the global community. Not knowing why encourages Americans to preserve their righteous self-image even as the moths of history chew holes in it.

Best, in Washington’s view, that we do not know why talks in Geneva last weekend failed.

Complex story, but we can take care of it simply. Iran wants a nuclear program, and this includes the capacity to enrich uranium. This is Iran‘s right under international law. Washington and the major European powers do not want Iran to have such a program because they worry Iran will eventually build a nuclear weapon. The talks in Geneva went sour because the U.S. and the Europeans demanded that Iran surrender its right.

O.K. Here is the lead in the Times report from the City of Diplomacy:

The Iranian government’s insistence on formal recognition

of its “right” to enrich uranium emerged as a major obstacle,

diplomats said Sunday.

Two big problems. Nothing emerged as an obstacle in Geneva other than Secretary of State Kerry’s duplicity, given that his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, now charges him with misleading Iran as to demands to be made on the enrichment question. Iran has been quite clear all along: Enrichment under law will never get on the table. Zarif would have skipped the trip had he known Kerry’s plans; Kerry knew this.

Then the quotation marks. With them, the Times proposes to deprive Iran of its statutory rights so that Washington can lie to us as well as to the Iranians.

You are all set now for the corker. You search through the piece to understand the quotation marks, and you come to this, edited down so as to get to the point:

Iran has asserted repeatedly that it has the right to enrich uranium….

The Obama administration is prepared to allow Iran to enrich

uranium to the low level of 3.5 percent…. But the administration

is not prepared to acknowledge at this point that Iran has a “right”

to enrich….

This is how the consciousness of empire is dribbled into us and sustained, one touch at a time. Iran asserts only the validity of international law. What the administration is prepared to allow or acknowledge has nothing to do with what Iran can and cannot do as a sovereign nation.

This is also why these talks are very likely to fail. If they do, it will be the fault of Washington and its allies and the complicit media. It is this kind of language that enables Congress to begin debates on new sanctions against Iran. Concessions and demands are different: Iran may choose to concede this or that; the U.S. cannot demand those things by pretending international law does not (somehow) apply.

In my view, we are amid a pandemic of misinformation as to our global behavior. The dishonesty with which we are given the world — an essentially fantastic version of it — is becoming abject to the point of danger. And it is frighteningly willful. Here is the paradox: We cannot bear to see things as they are because things as they are constitute a refutation of our dearest mythologies, but we must see things as they are if we are to make sense of ourselves in the 21st century.

The Iran case has just become urgent in this regard. As I have asserted previously, it will be profoundly detrimental if the U.S. and the Europeans do not pursue what is a patently serious effort on Iran‘s part to claim its rights and ease the world’s worries as to its nuclear program.

If the honorable editor will permit the unconventional, two things belong in caps so that a modest few Americans might stop wandering in the dark purposely created by the Times and all the other media too weak-minded to make judgments without reference to the Times:

ONE: IRAN HAS AN UNAMBIGUOUS RIGHT UNDER LAW TO A NUCLEAR PROGRAM, INCLUDING ENRICHMENT, EVEN IF THIS MAKES IT (AS IT WILL) NEARLY CAPABLE OF WEAPONIZING. READ YOUR DAILY NEWS DOSAGE WITH THIS IN MIND.

TWO. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN DESIRES A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AND DECADES OF POLICY TO INDICATE IT PREFERS A NUCLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EAST. THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON IRAN WOULD CHANGE ITS MIND: ISRAEL‘S NEVER-MENTIONED ARSENAL OF NUKES. THE MOTIVE WOULD BE DETERRENCE, AND MOST OF US WORSHIPPED AT THE ALTAR OF DETERRENCE WELL ENOUGH DURING THE COLD WAR. IRAN HAS SIGNED THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY; ISRAEL DECLINES TO DO SO.

The adage among properly cynical diplomats used to be that they were sent abroad to lie for their country. During the Cold War, as Washington’s sponsored atrocities grew evident, the thought took a turn: Diplomats were sent abroad to lie to their country.

Consider it a template and apply it to our press folk.

Correspondents used to be sent abroad to keep the country informed (in theory, at least). Now correspondents go forth to send home a simulacrum of truth, a semblance, while keeping their country misinformed.

It is no good positing some golden age of spotless integrity, some yesteryear when newspapers, the wires and broadcasters glistened with high principle. There never was such a time. A good press is ever a work in progress, requiring the calloused hands of each generation to make it however good it can, always and by definition short of any ideal.

Too far short when one considers this columnist’s cohort.

Source: Alternet


Home / Breaking News / Chomsky’s Right: The New York Times’ Latest Big Lie
Chomsky’s Right: The New York Times’ Latest Big Lie

in Breaking News 2 hours ago 0

More misleading half-truths from a paper too cowed by power and myth to tell the truth about U.S. foreign policy.

Never before have I written a column concerning nothing more than a pair of quotation marks. Then again, never until now have I seen the power of punctuation so perniciously deployed.

It is not a new trick. Very popular in hackdom during the Cold War decades. Enclose something in quotation marks and all between them is instantly de-legitimized; no argument or explanation need be made. Here, try it:

“… the Cuban ‘doctors’ sent to Angola…”

Or: “… Soviet-made ‘farm equipment’ in Portugal since its 1974 revolution…”

Well, they were doctors and it was farm equipment. In the latter category I sat in a Soviet tractor out in the Portuguese vineyards, and damn it if the camponês did not find it useful.

In the end, this kind of thing is simply passive aggression, my least favorite neurosis. No one actively lies such that one can confront and reveal. It is lying by misleading and by implication, so sending us off full of groundless conviction and prejudice.

In this case, we have the irresponsible use of inverted commas, as the Brits say, to shape national opinion on a question of vital importance. The question is Iran. And now to the supine, corrupted and corrupting organ.

You have taken a wild guess, and you are right. We have our familiar problem with our friends on Eighth Avenue, the New York Times, faithful servants of the sanctioned orthodoxy. I give these folks an “A” for clever disguise this time, and I flunk them in the professional ethics class. Simply shameful, this round of reckless chicanery.

Here is the situation.

As all know, a deal with Iran over its nuclear program is the biggest game going these days — an historic opportunity, as previously asserted in this space. Fumble this, and the Obama administration will go down as hopelessly moronic on the foreign-relations side.

You may know, too, that a round of talks between six world powers and the Iranians just hit a pothole. It is essential to understand why.

The paradox is apparent, not real. Knowing why reveals what a nation with imperial ambitions looks like when it is nearing exhaustion and would rather decline than shape up, re-imagine itself, and take a new and constructive place in the global community. Not knowing why encourages Americans to preserve their righteous self-image even as the moths of history chew holes in it.

Best, in Washington’s view, that we do not know why talks in Geneva last weekend failed.

Complex story, but we can take care of it simply. Iran wants a nuclear program, and this includes the capacity to enrich uranium. This is Iran‘s right under international law. Washington and the major European powers do not want Iran to have such a program because they worry Iran will eventually build a nuclear weapon. The talks in Geneva went sour because the U.S. and the Europeans demanded that Iran surrender its right.

O.K. Here is the lead in the Times report from the City of Diplomacy:

The Iranian government’s insistence on formal recognition

of its “right” to enrich uranium emerged as a major obstacle,

diplomats said Sunday.

Two big problems. Nothing emerged as an obstacle in Geneva other than Secretary of State Kerry’s duplicity, given that his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, now charges him with misleading Iran as to demands to be made on the enrichment question. Iran has been quite clear all along: Enrichment under law will never get on the table. Zarif would have skipped the trip had he known Kerry’s plans; Kerry knew this.

Then the quotation marks. With them, the Times proposes to deprive Iran of its statutory rights so that Washington can lie to us as well as to the Iranians.

You are all set now for the corker. You search through the piece to understand the quotation marks, and you come to this, edited down so as to get to the point:

Iran has asserted repeatedly that it has the right to enrich uranium….

The Obama administration is prepared to allow Iran to enrich

uranium to the low level of 3.5 percent…. But the administration

is not prepared to acknowledge at this point that Iran has a “right”

to enrich….

This is how the consciousness of empire is dribbled into us and sustained, one touch at a time. Iran asserts only the validity of international law. What the administration is prepared to allow or acknowledge has nothing to do with what Iran can and cannot do as a sovereign nation.

This is also why these talks are very likely to fail. If they do, it will be the fault of Washington and its allies and the complicit media. It is this kind of language that enables Congress to begin debates on new sanctions against Iran. Concessions and demands are different: Iran may choose to concede this or that; the U.S. cannot demand those things by pretending international law does not (somehow) apply.

In my view, we are amid a pandemic of misinformation as to our global behavior. The dishonesty with which we are given the world — an essentially fantastic version of it — is becoming abject to the point of danger. And it is frighteningly willful. Here is the paradox: We cannot bear to see things as they are because things as they are constitute a refutation of our dearest mythologies, but we must see things as they are if we are to make sense of ourselves in the 21st century.

The Iran case has just become urgent in this regard. As I have asserted previously, it will be profoundly detrimental if the U.S. and the Europeans do not pursue what is a patently serious effort on Iran‘s part to claim its rights and ease the world’s worries as to its nuclear program.

If the honorable editor will permit the unconventional, two things belong in caps so that a modest few Americans might stop wandering in the dark purposely created by the Times and all the other media too weak-minded to make judgments without reference to the Times:

ONE: IRAN HAS AN UNAMBIGUOUS RIGHT UNDER LAW TO A NUCLEAR PROGRAM, INCLUDING ENRICHMENT, EVEN IF THIS MAKES IT (AS IT WILL) NEARLY CAPABLE OF WEAPONIZING. READ YOUR DAILY NEWS DOSAGE WITH THIS IN MIND.

TWO. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN DESIRES A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AND DECADES OF POLICY TO INDICATE IT PREFERS A NUCLEAR-FREE MIDDLE EAST. THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON IRAN WOULD CHANGE ITS MIND: ISRAEL‘S NEVER-MENTIONED ARSENAL OF NUKES. THE MOTIVE WOULD BE DETERRENCE, AND MOST OF US WORSHIPPED AT THE ALTAR OF DETERRENCE WELL ENOUGH DURING THE COLD WAR. IRAN HAS SIGNED THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY; ISRAEL DECLINES TO DO SO.

The adage among properly cynical diplomats used to be that they were sent abroad to lie for their country. During the Cold War, as Washington’s sponsored atrocities grew evident, the thought took a turn: Diplomats were sent abroad to lie to their country.

Consider it a template and apply it to our press folk.

Correspondents used to be sent abroad to keep the country informed (in theory, at least). Now correspondents go forth to send home a simulacrum of truth, a semblance, while keeping their country misinformed.

It is no good positing some golden age of spotless integrity, some yesteryear when newspapers, the wires and broadcasters glistened with high principle. There never was such a time. A good press is ever a work in progress, requiring the calloused hands of each generation to make it however good it can, always and by definition short of any ideal.

Too far short when one considers this columnist’s cohort.

Source: Alternet

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/chomskys-right-the-new-york-times-latest-big-lie/

Yup...he was always helping people if it looked like they needed help, and he wouldn't take money for his favours unless it was freely offered after the fact. I understand that he used to have a fair bit of stuff (and money), but gave it all away when he decided that stuff with only monetary value was of no value to him at all.



Like ignore people who need help because it might cost something?

No wonder when he used to talk to me he called it my society that he wanted no part of, preferring his "society" that he claimed to belong to. It kinda makes me wonder if he was really mentally ill, or if everyone else is.

Friends never break up with you...lovers always do.

Tip #1: never believe a lover who wants to be "just friends"...You know damn well that's the last time you'll ever see them.

Tip #2: Never trust a friend who wants to be your lover...You know damn well that s/he isn't really your friend and will end up being "just a friend" you'll never see again.

Tip#3: stay close with the one you liked to play "house" with as kids before you even knew what sex was. Chances are especially good that if you potty-trained together, you stand a chance of marrying and staying with your best friend AND lover for the rest of your lives.

I have no sense of shame, so I can't think of anything that I really should be embarrassed for that embarrassed me at the time; but after reading some of the string bikini posts on here, I can't help but curse at my misfortune for never being at the right place at the right time to see someone else's embarrassment.