I want to make it clear that I'm not calling myself the "victim" here, because there really is no victim, just some political differences.  I'm not suffering because of what they're doing, but I am highly annoyed, and honestly, a little surprised.  Maybe this speaks to my naivete about human nature (I always seem to think that people are much better than they are, and I expect people to act with a certain dignity, even if I don't always fit the bill.)  I guess I just expect these people to be civil.  I would hope that in the past, if I have had problems with people that are as shallow as political differences that I have at least been civil to them.  I may have been unable to understand them, and I may have been privately (sometimes publicly) pissed, but I hope that I haven't taken it out on them in a vitriolic way.  I recently failed at this goal for myself.  I just couldn't take it anymore, and I started putting angry comments on a facebook wall.  It began when someone was mocking my facebook political views and it ended when they accused me of having my "panties in a twist."  I just wanted them to "leave me the hell alone."

There is one thing that I understand about things like facebook, and this blog (which is why I choose to remain anonymous): it's a public forum, and I can only expect my views, or, for that matter, anything I put up, to be criticized.  I don't mind criticism.  I like it most of the time, because it helps me to develop what I believe more fully and it helps me to better communicate what I believe.  But this recent criticism differs from the ideal for public discourse about beliefs:  it is not civil and it is not constructive.

It's really just harassment,  unwarranted harassment at that.  It happens when someone looks at my facebook wall and sees that I support Obama or really dislike McCain, or am a vegetarian, or even put up a facebook note about a button which was, admittedly, an overreaction which I corrected.  When people see these things, their first reaction is to pounce.  I've gotten quite a few comments that were just plain mean and didn't do anything to challenge me or to start productive conversation.  The only goal seemed to be to piss me off and bully me.  My question is: why do these people think it is necessary to do this?  I don't really know.  And the only reason I can think of is that they a) have nothing better to do than find people with different viewpoints and harass them; b) are just ugly people lacking compassion or at least civility; c) think that harassment is an effective tool at beating people down who hold different viewpoints; d) genuinely lack understanding of what constitutes civil public debate.  The funny thing is that the majority of these people were former debaters with me, and we lived by the understanding that debate rounds included nothing personal and that ad-hom arguments or ones lacking nuances didn't get as much mileage as the ones that were reasonable, measured, and evidenced.  Perhaps they forgot.  If this isn't true, let me know.  I'd like to understand why.

Really, what this harassment achieves is intimidation.  The end of it is that the person on the receiving end doesn't feel free to voice viewpoints because he/she knows that in the future, nothing productive will come out of it, and no debate will happen.  This is what leads me to believe that the people who engage in this type of public discourse want the other person to be silenced because the harasser doesn't agree with them.  In the end, civil public debate dies, and the definition of public discourse becomes one of intimidation and domination.  Nobody wins, except maybe the harasser.  He/she gets to feel in control and self-righteous and gets to have a little power trip.  His/her viewpoint, though, doesn't become anymore valid or right.

I went through my phase of berating and disparaging other people.  This seemed to be the vogue when I was on the debate team.  We didn't seem to get the core concept of the activity we were participating in.  Then I grew up.

Honestly, I'm glad to be done with this school.  I met very few people who had the mental capacity to understand how civil debate works.  The rest just engaged in name calling and an ignorant level of argument.  The impression I got was that they were afraid of what was different and that they were too lazy to think about it more than the shallow level of their debate showed.  Life after Evangelical Institution probably won't be much different, but I hope that as people mature, they can understand how to argue and at least attempt to understand, perhaps even sympathize with, viewpoints that are different than their own.

All I'm saying is that I welcome challenges to my beliefs.  I did post them publicly, after all, and so I can't expect everyone to agree with me and to co-exist in a bucolic world because I ask them to.  I do expect, though, that challenges be reasonable and productive, and that people engage me in a way that is constructive.  I would hope that there could be a mutual respect between two people who have reached their own conclusions about the world around them.

Maybe I hope for too much.

Mas que dirigente político ou governo de país industrializado ousaria reconhecer que os modos de vida e de consumo que defende, e que são os nossos, constituem um grande risco para uma importante parte da espécie humana – e talvez mesmo para nossas civilizações?"

Frédéric Durand, sobre as deformações que sofreu o texto original do Tratado de Kyoto para que fosse aprovado pelas nações.

Citação que da inicio à Série Especial do quadrinho 2035, que pode ser encontrada no site Malvados.

Well, I think it has to do with the issues themselves. Moderates are, by definition, those who hold some conservative and some liberal beliefs. For example, I consider myself a moderate. On specific issues though, you could try to pigeon hole me into one extreme or the other. I believe the "war on drugs" is a waste, we should invest more in drug treatment and not in incarcerating users, I think we should invest in alternative energy solutions, and I believe in conservation. On the flip side of the coin, I look at abortion and can't help but think the fetus gets the raw end of the deal of the body-rights issue, I believe in an armed citizenry, and I'm not convinced that "greenhouse gases" from humans cause "global warming".

Now, another person may hold opposite views that I do (and I'm sure MANY do). Yet, this person too, could be labeled a moderate. Liberals and conservatives have a platform; but we moderates do not. I believe having a platform unites, but at the expense of critical thinking.

So, what are we to do? In my humble opinion, we should continue to debate. Talk about the issues. Keep an open mind. That's the only way we can come up with new ideas, and bring innovation into the process.

The one's who get the press SAY they debate the issues. Bullshit. All the Rush's and the Gore's do is mouth rhetoric, and their followers nod their heads - and the press reports on it. We, the majority, can refocus the spotlight, if we talk about our differences, and discover how we can bridge the gap between our varying beliefs.

Discuss. To that end, I will try to make sense of some of my ramblings, and commit those irrelevant ramblings to electronic ink. I would invite you to criticize, debate, and analyze my thinking. I will do the same with others' posts.

Hopefully, all involved can grow just a bit wiser.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Se destapan los negocios turbios en PEMEX en el Debate que se lleva a cabo en el Senado

.

Los “negocios turbios” de Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) con contratistas extranjeros y con empresas creadas fuera del país para evadir toda regulación, fueron exhibidos ayer por ponentes y legisladores durante el foro de análisis sobre las iniciativas de reforma de Felipe Calderón, que trató sobre “transparencia, rendición de cuentas y combate a la corrupción” en la paraestatal.

.

Ponencia de Gabriel Moctezuma Muñoz:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.635074&w=425&h=350&fv=]

.

Fue un alud de denuncias formuladas por el titular de la Auditoría Superior de la Federación (ASF), Arturo González de Aragón; Octavio Romero Oropeza, integrante del “gobierno legítimo de México”, y el senador del PRD Graco Ramírez, acerca de contratos que al final triplican su costo, alquiler de equipo viejo y con sobreprecio a trasnacionales, y empresas constituidas en paraísos fiscales que participan en la venta del crudo en el extranjero.

.

Ponencia de Arturo González de Aragón:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.635096&w=425&h=350&fv=]

.

Ponencia de Octavio Romero Oropeza:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.635116&w=425&h=350&fv=]

.

Ponencia de Mariano Palacios Alcocer:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.635154&w=425&h=350&fv=]

.

Debate entre Ponentes:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.635234&w=425&h=350&fv=]

.

El propio González de Aragón respondió que la ASF presentó denuncias ante la Procuraduría General de la República y otras instancias por las irregularidades detectadas en Pemex, pero están ahí, congeladas.

Esto, porque el senador panista Rubén Camarillo exigió que todos los casos ahí presentados “se traduzcan en las denuncias correspondientes”.

.

.

.

Pemex Internacional constituyó Pemex Financial Trust en noviembre de 1998, bajo el amparo de leyes de Islas Caimán, no cuenta con empleados y es administrada por un banco en aquella localidad. Como ésa, se han constituido empresas en Dublín, Houston, Aruba, y en otras partes.

El consejo de administración de Pemex no recibe información de esas empresas debido a que, “en la perla de la corrupción”, las decisiones de Pemex Internacional pasan por el Comité de Comercio Exterior del Petróleo, que no existe jurídicamente, insistió el legislador. Al final, planteó desaparecer “esa agencia de corrupción internacional” y citar a comparecer a su titular lo antes posible.

.

.

.

.

.

Ante el cúmulo de denuncias los legisladores del PAN perdieron el control, a tal grado que el debate terminó con una confrontación entre el diputado Juan José Rodríguez Prats y Romero Oropeza, toda vez que el legislador panista aprovechó que este último ya no tenía oportunidad de intervenir para cuestionarlo.

.

Romero Oropeza se levantó de su asiento y, ya sin micrófono, le gritó al diputado: “¡Eres un tramposo y un mentiroso!” Mientras, el panista manoteaba desde su lugar y levantaba hacia arriba el puño derecho.

“¡No le llegas ni a la suela de los zapatos a Andrés Manuel!”, le espetó Romero Oropeza a Rodríguez Prats. (leer más)

.

While I always steer clear of gender wars no matter how funny, and religious debates no matter how provocative, I find myself again and again, arguing with knucles heads arguing about how people can be judged and bunched for their choices. While it does piss me off, I've kinda perfected the art of the big ignore.

Save for one exception.

College in Manipal was a very cosmopolitan experience. I had friends from all over. Most of my closest friends were of Nepalese origin. And thats when I started to realise the reeking prejudices people have about people with oriental features.

I only realised how strong the opinions were once I moved to Bangalore. Not only are my friends perceived to be of a lesser moral benchmark, they are constantly subjected to the 'hello darlings' and 'how much's?' One of my friends even said how 'slow' the 'chinkis' are!!!! Since when did IQ depend on the slant of your eyes or the colour of your skin?? Some of the smartest women I knew in college were Nepalese and also some of the most feisty! I wish I had Pragya Koirala (the superhero) with me everytime someone made a wise crack about Nepali girls.

Any ideas on how to stop this rubbish??

Why do they believe this?

Well, for some these folks, they are simply looking for the impossible. Even though many technical writers have science and/or engineering backgrounds, no writer can be a master of everything. There are areas of computer science and mechanical and electrical engineering that I will probably never understand, forget about master. Sure, I know what "polymorphism" means, but there are quite a few things that I need to dust off an old reference book for or simply learn on the job. Many times all that is required to write clear and accurate technical documentation is a working understanding of these concepts and methodologies, not a Ph.D.

However, other coworkers who have asked this question do have a valid point. It is a common sign of the times to run into technical writers who are excellent grammarians and masters of the English language (or other languages), but who would be hard pressed if asked to actually install the software (or hardware) they write the installation guide for. The dot com boom did not help the situation at all. Even having a degree was optional in some places during the boom time, and anyone with an English or Journalism degree could grab a high salary.

Even though many people profited from the "gravy days" (including myself!), it did leave many people with an incredibly skewed perspective, or flat out bad impression, on what a technical writer is actually trained to do. I've had more than one development manager or software architect immediately give me the cold shoulder when I tried to provide feedback on their code, or talk to me like I was a newborn babe because the writer before me couldn't tell the difference between a drive array and an Oreo cookie. I've also had many of these people stare in fascination because I used GNU Emacs or knew what a "subnet mask" was.

How can we improve our image?

For every new technical writer breaking out into the vast unknown of the computer industry, I recommend one personal guideline that can't be stressed enough...be technical. It sounds rather foolish to tell a technical writer to, well, be technical! However, learning or refreshing your working knowledge on subjects related to your industry is not only helpful for your job, but also helps the technical writer community as a whole. As my parents constantly reminded me, "You never stop learning". In order to improve our image, we have to gain respect, and we'll never garner any respect from our technical comrades if we continue to put forth the image that all a tech writer can do is tell them where to put a period.

And dammit people, be adventurous! Install the freaking software, look at the source code, pay attention when the developers are discussing coding guidelines. Don't just chime in because the button in the UI has a misspelling, look at the UI as whole and think about how it can be improved. If you don't know what a UI is...LEARN. Technical writers always have to keep their audience in mind as they write, use that perspective to help your fellow developers design a better product.

Finally, for managers, let's be a little more careful when we put out a job req. I have seen many companies swing a little too low or too high on the techie pendulum. During the boomtime, many tech writer job requirements were slim and the salaries astronomical. I'm sorry my writer brethren, but having a degree in Journalism or History just doesn't cut it. Yes, many of us came from various backgrounds, but for heaven's sake at least get certified! What do you have to lose? On the flip side, I see quite a few job requirements that are flat out ridiculous and the salaries comical. You don't need a Master's degree in Computer Science to write an SDK Guide. I don't care how complex you claim your product is.

But what do I know? I'm just a writer.

"I try to make subtle distinctions to be as accurate as possible. I've noticed that when I do this, people who think in the opposite way slam me for being inconsistent. Take Israel, for example. Israel-bashers take the real examples of Israel's dismal treatment of the Palestinians and translate that into outright labling of the Israeli state itself as criminal. When you do that, you are expressing prejudice. So even if the human rights violations by Israel ended, the Israel-bashers would still demand that the Jewish state should not exist because the act of establishing it displaced some Palestinians.

What they don't tell you is that if Israel had never come into existence, the Jews still living in Palestine would be under ARAB rule and would be subject to whatever treatment the Arab rulers felt like doing. Given that most Arab states even today are either absolute monarchies or military dictatorships, how can efforts to establish a democracy for Jews like what was done in 1948 not be justified?

So I will slam Israel for specific acts that are excessive, but defend its right to exist and protect its citizens within lawful limits."

And that's the only decent way to operate. Anyone who takes a different route is a hypocrite, looking for excuses to have a second Holocaust in the Holy Land.

One, Nader will need major media attention to reach a large enough audience to even possibly become electable and second, the problem that occurs when the electability of the more likely but less favorable candidate is reduced by the independent vote thus causing the less favored candidate to win. (In this case I assume the scenario would be the democrat losing votes to the independent causing the republican to win.)

There is a trick to getting Nader access to a major audience. He would need to do one of two things, either get authorization from the private owned company that controls the debates, which in turn is owned by the two major political parties, the democrat and republican parties respectively ( Who for obvious reasons don't want an independent candidate debating them) or he can appeal to another corporation to sponsor the debate, one that can offer an audience that can't be turned down, as to insure the acceptance of the major parties. Nader has accomplished the latter, he has managed to convince Google to fight the aforementioned, two partied owned, corporation for its monopoly over the debates and now they have agreed to hold an open debate live on YouTube that will allow multiple parties to participate, as long as the party has at least 10% in the national poll.  (Which is 5% less than what the Dem & Rep owned debates accept, even thought that doesn't necessary insure acceptance) Nader, by the way, is around 6%. That being said, I do believe that there is a big problem with Nader not having enough media coverage, you can see him expressing it when he says buzz-word-phrases that attract media attention, but he's been able to sway Google to help him with this obstacle.

Concerning a two party system which forces us into voting for one party for fear of the other party being elected,  convinces me that it itself is problematic to the concept of democracy. (Which we hold to be conducted by a series of free elections) Furthermore, in denying the possibility of a third party we are condemning ourselves to the polarizing and monopolizing effects of a two party system. I think that in exposing this flaw common sense logic tells us that a two party system is counter intuitive to a democracy.

Como explicar a grande popularidade desta marca? como falar que as pessoas preferem passar pela transição windows - mac (que diga-se de passagem é muito complicado com atalhos e acentos)?Como explicar que as pessoas com carros importados quizessem colocar um adesivo da maçã para se sentir importante?

Parece que no mundo há três tipos de pessoas, as apaixonadas por apple, as que odeiam a apple e aqueles que estão em fase de transição de um grupo para outro e desconhecedores. Bom não preciso nem falar que o grupo de apaixonados por Apple se não é o maior, está quase passando o desconhecedores/em fase transitória.

A Apple cresce todos os dias por indicações de usuários, de declarações de que o produto é o melhor. A marca passou com isso a ser tachada de Cool, ter um produto Apple te da estatos, as pessoas que são apaixonadas teram um motivo a mais para falar com você, pois os apaixonados pela Apple, conhecem todos os produtos e sempre sabem de quase todas as funcionalidades.

Eu não estou aqui para falar que a marca é boa ou não, estou para discutir o por que dessa atitude cega, claro que se você gosta da empresa você deve sim apoiar como apóiam, mas será que os produtos são tão melhores assim? todos? ou seria apenas pessoas querendo ser Cool?

Falar do mac ou do iPod é perda de tempo, realmente são diferenciais do mercado, muito a frente de seus concorrentes, porém o iPhone é tão bom assim?

Só gostaria de deixar essa pergunta na mente de todos.

Quanto á série de posts sobre como entrar no mercado de design fiquem ligado que em breve vem novo post.

Uma coisa nos blogs me chamou muito atenção, a vontade dos blogueiros de tornar seu blog uma marca, uma empresa. Realmente é bem bacana você consiguir um site que tenha uma marca conhecida e com isso você conseguir além de difundir sua ideologia, conseguir vender um espaço para anúnico lá.

A discução sempre fica nessa área se é certo ou não o blogueiro ganhar dinheiro com posts pagos. Mas será que se você pudesse ganhar, você não o faria? Claro que não devemos ir contra os princípios, como disse o Cristiano Dias nos braincasts, Você tem que ser consciente e saber que sua credibilidade está em jogo, porém ganhar seu prório dinheiro com uma coisa que você realizou é o mais legal.

A blogosfera e seus leitores se preocupam demais com isso, se o leitor desconfia que o escritor de seu blog favorito vende "suas idéas", por que você ainda lê o blog dele? Se ele não vende sua ideologia, por que ele não pode ganhar dinheiro, até mesmo para investir no blog e torná-lo melhor?

Você assiste TV? Ouve rádio? Lê jornal? são perguntas que tenho me perguntado ultimamente, e as respostas são apenas não, tirando uns jornais grátis distribuidos perto do metro. E por quê? A internet tem sido auto-suficiente em relação a conteúdo de informação. Blogs tem se expecializado e focado nos principais temas, enquanto a TV passa a ser mais e mais mastigada e sem graça, a internet te da a liberdade de ter interatividade, em momento real. Por que eu falei tudo isso? Simples! O futuro é a internet, com a vinda da TV digital, em breve a TV será direto do computador (legalmente) e com isso teremos cada vez mais vínculo com blogs, uma coisa natural pensando desta forma.

Então esqueça essa hitória ridícula falando que post pago ou o cara ir a um evento só para blogueiro patrocinado por uma marca é coisa de vendido, pois é por eles que os blogs se mantêm e crescem dessa forma, é por esse motivo que esse meio ta ficando cada vez mais estável e confiável. Apenas é por isso.

Para quem não saber Blogosfera é... a... o wikipédia responde!

It's been a strange day. I spent the afternoon having tea in the Blue Peter garden laughing about those Valerie Singleton and Joan Armatrading rumours and the later part of the day in tears after reading this in Taylor Parkes Live Journal. Underneath which is this piece on Taylor's relationship with anti-depressants and the extended damage they do.

Both of these are quite old now but new to me. I don't know quite what to say except that I found both posts incredibly moving and emotive. I fervently hope that with the passing of time you're doing ok Taylor?

Posting this seems like the best response. It's going to have to be in a couple of parts I'm afraid because there's five more pages and I don't have time to scan it all tonight in one go - besides there's loads to read in the links. No doubt these days this sort of debate would exist as a podcast but I think you'll see in the coming posts that setting the discussion in print allows the reader to reflect more clearly on what has been said.

The Boo Radleys - Song from the Blueroom
[audio http://archivedmusicpress.wordpress.com/files/2008/07/13-song-from-the-blueroom.mp3]

Now we're older, things are stranger
Than they've ever been
Now I'm scared of death
For the first time

And what goes up must come down
So I can't talk right now
And maybe it's easy to believe
That once once in your life, once your life
You'll find the love that you have always had
Realise that before you knew nothing at all

**Note: With the All-Star game taking place this week at Yankee Stadium, I will spend the next several days showcasing cards from my Yankee collection.

The current political landscape is rough and, it seems, getting rougher all the time. And one of those rough spots involves the way in which religion is understood and engaged - what we assume about proper practice and what we argue in terms of proper reading of sacred texts. In light of this arrangement, I'd like to offer a suggestion, or better yet a recommendation: Regardless of what recent debate and disagreement suggests, we would be wise to let go of the assumption there is a correct and "true" reading of the Bible. This is not the case, and it has never been the case. It will never be the case.

The Bible is always read in light of the reader's historical and cultural context - always has been and always will be. That is to say, we bring our concerns and ourselves to the Bible. This is not a problem unless it goes unacknowledged, hidden behind a thin veil of religious self-righteousness and arrogance. And regarding this, Evangelicals don't have a direct line to the world of the Bible and the intent of the scripture message, but neither do those who are more liberal in their religious outlook. Both perspectives, and all those in between, can do great harm when they involve (by commission or omission) speaking about biblical claims out of context, without proper attention to the world in which those passages were forged and the interests and preoccupations of contemporary readers.

To read more click on this link.

My attention-seeking fan continues to make false claims about this post which requires me to post things to protect myself legally (which is the only reason that I am even writing anything further about my fan).

1. Just as my fan calls me a starlet, my use of the term “fan” is obvious satire. Any reasonable person sees that, and his complaint that I am falsely calling him a genuine fan is simply more nonsense. It is obvious satire, and is a much nicer term than if I put something unsatirical. Ironically the term is appropriate if the dictionary is consulted. A fanatical fixation need not be positive, it is simply an inordiante interest in something. My fan starts a site about me, searches the internet for nude pictures to try to discredit me, is now searching the interest for any comments I may have made about harassment, and posts at least once a day about me. That is fanatical.

2. I have never accused my fan of illegal activities. I specifically bolded in the original post that I was not. This is just more of his typical “the aggressor playing the victim game” that he has done all along which is also textbook behaviour of harassers. He was the instigator of this whole nonsense. His continued accusations that I have accused him of illegal activities is defamatory. Florida has no cyber-harassment law, only cyber-stalking, and I have repeatedly said I am not accusing him of cyber-stalking. I have no idea what the laws are in the state he lives, and I believe the current state of Internet law would hold that the law of the state of any alleged victim would be the controlling law though an attorney would have to make that determination - which of course is irrelevant since I am not accusing him of anything illegal but rather behaviour that is unethical and unbefitting a Christian and self-proclaimed licensed minister of the Gospel. And that he is creepy. Which he most definitely is. He is more than welcome to take me to Court if he thinks me calling him a creepy harasser is defamatory. I am not only confident I would prevail, I am confident that he could be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous suit. His last post regarding me is definitely defamatory. I have no intention of suing him. My full intention is to leave him in the mud he has climbed into. This supplement is simply to protect my legal rights.

   When I read such stuff, I really have to wonder.  I have already told Rodrigo that I have no intention of bringing any lawsuit against either party.  I did say, however, that if they had dared to identify me as the "fan," they might be looking at a libel suit.  I'm sure they already know this, and I'm sure that is the reason why the positive identification is not forthcoming.

  As for the rest of her allegations, I really could care less.  Dee Dee has been making allegations from day one.  It all started when she refused to debate me, and I sent her the following reply.  Note that she immediately began seeking "witnesses," and told me that my "tone was inappropriate."  If you read the correspondence, however, you'll find that there is nothing in my tone which may even be remotely construed as inappropprate.  Here are the posts in order.  Please read carefully:

http://deedeewarren.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/hello-world/

http://deedeewarren.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/the-debate-that-she-refused-part-2/

http://deedeewarren.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/the-debate-that-she-refused-part-3/

http://deedeewarren.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/the-debate-that-she-refused-part-4/

http://deedeewarren.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/the-debate-that-she-refused-part-5/

 These posts form the kernel of this entire blog.  They also identify the controversy between Dee Dee and myself as purely theological in nature, and not personal as she claims.  From the very get-go, Dee Dee took the issue personally.  However, private email correspondence would reveal that even she admitted, in her more lucid moments, that this is a theological war.

  I mainly protested against her recent article because of the colors she used to paint my personal character.  As for making allegations of illegal activity, she needn't deny them now, for she has already done so.  These are her exact words:

He is concerned that I called him creepy. He is. Many others have emailed me saying so. He keeps saying, “Is she calling me a cyberstalker”? I haven’t. He is the one who keeps bringing up that term. However, here is a site on cyberstalking and harassment, and you tell me if he fits the profile - he definitely is engaging in harassment.

  She follows this accusation by saying:

I am going to take the advice of this site and break off all contact - other things I cannot do due to my position.

 OK.  Let's clear some things up.  On the first score, what she wrote is definitely an accusation of illegal behavior, for she quoted Florida state criminal statutes to justify her claims.  But since she didn't give my name, there is nothing I can legally do about it.  In fact, I don't intend to. 

  On the second point, she conveniently forgets that I am the one who broke off all contact--not her!  The last email I sent to Dee Dee Warren is dated July 5th, 2008: exactly nine days before the posting of her article. 

 Again, please see my July 7th article, "Welcome To Fantasies, Unlimited," in which I distinctly announce: "But Mr. Anti-Preterist (also known as “Il Generalissimo”) is finished dealing with Rodrigo and Dizzle."  This proves once more that I had already stopped communicating with Dee Dee long before she even posted her article.

  However, when I asked Roderick Edwards to explain her behavior in penning that article on July 14th, nine days after I had ceased communicating with her, he responded the same day with the following:

Dee Dee is merely covering her bases in case your vendetta reaches a level where she might need a restraining order or something. 

  Hmm.. that certainly makes me sound like a "criminal," doesn't it?  Here is what I wrote back:

Rod,

 

Restraining order my foot! First of all, I disagree that I'm doing anything wrong.  My assessment against yours. Also, there is no "vendetta."  You would have to prove there is.  I have your I.P. address on file, to show that all of those verbally abusive comments you left on my blog came from you.  I also have statements from Dee Dee which [...].  If anything, the vendetta is on her side.  She has been making allegations and accusations against me from day one.  All I have accused her of is hypocrisy and unethical behavior.  My emails and correspondence prove this.

 

Secondly, by outright accusing me of harassment at this early stage, she is getting herself into a possible defamation suit.  But since she hasn't included my name, we'll let it go.  If she brings the charges to a higher level, however, she'll have to identify me as her supposed "fan."  I have politely asked for those misrepresentations to be dropped.  But I have no intention of doing anything more than defend myself against unjust accusations. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with both of you. 

Brian

  Really, do I sound like someone who is harassing others?  And why would there be any need for a "restraining order," unless someone was making accusations of illegal behavior?  Dee Dee can "protect her legal rights" all she likes.  She already knows full well that I'm not about to travel to Florida to sue her.  I have better things to do with my life.  And once again, she has refused to identify me as her "harasser."

   While I can live with these allegations, however, I have a hard time swallowing certain statements made in post comments which appear to paint me as some obsessed sex-nut.  As a paralegal, Dee Dee should know that this is the kind of material which often brings on libel suits:

He is in the wrong from start to finish, and quite honestly, I feel sorry for him. He described his personal situation so it appears that all he has to do is sit around all day and fixate on me. That is a totally unhealthy situation.

  Here Dee Dee is apparently twisting certain things I told Roderick Edwards out of context to make me fit the profile of a "cyber-harasser."  I told Roderick that I lost all my possessions in Hurricane Katrina, and do not own any assets.  He must have forwarded this message to Dee Dee, who implies, in a very cautious manner, that I am an "unhealthy" person who spends the majority of my day browsing porno sites and fixating on her.  Unbelievable.

  Dee Dee also had the nerve to tell Minna Hill:

 BTW - my fan has revealed that you are one of his supporters. I am not going to have a vicarious conversation with him through you, so please do not post here on this subject. My email is open to you with the promise that you do not forward them nor relate the contents in any form to my fan. If you cannot do that, then that is your choice.

  Once again, I never "revealed" any such thing!  Minna Hill wrote me, simply saying that the articles I posted on the errors of partial preterism proved helpful to her.  This does not make her my "supporter."  She never claimed this, nor did I.  I challenge either Dee Dee or Roderic Edwards to substantiate this statement, which I do not recall ever having made.  If they cannot do this, then it appears it is not I who am in the wrong, but themselves.

  Also, concerning any covert insinuations that I am a sex-nut, I plead "not guilty!"  As God is my witness, I am not among the growing number of men (and women) who spend their lives masturbating to pornography.  Such behavior trumpets the moral death of a nation.  And besides, I have dial-up. ;)

  As for my personal circumstances, I share a rented house with my mother, and pay the majority of the bills with my own income.  I am considered a likeable person in my community, and have never had trouble getting a date.  I am also a licensed minister of the Gospel, whose moral standards are very conservative.  I am not a wacko.  Do I even look like Kevin Spacey?

   Really, it is beyond embarassing to have to write these things for the public to read.  But certain persons have so far deviated from the theological nature of this controversy, that they have made a personal defense absolutely necessary.  Shame on them for engaging in such tactics.

Physics is a different story entirely. It only covered significant features, conversion of units and SOHCAHTOA. That should've been a good thing, but I blanked out. I knew what to do, I really did, but I didn't know how to properly input the data on my scientific calculator. How messed up is that? I felt so stupid.

I don't know what to do. I know my Physics concepts, but why do I screw up whenever I try to apply them? I mean, I already had a calculator. I have no skills at all. :(( I'm going to approach Sir Ron come Monday. I really need extra help. I have to jolt my brain into arranging itself before the meat of Physics comes up. Otherwise, I die. :| All my quizzes came back as U's. I really need to talk to him. I was talking to Sir Mike about teachers holding consultations, and he said, "What's there to consult? It's only the second session." Between Physics and myself, a lot. :|

Another subject I need to work on is Trig. I'm having a hard time with it, but I don't think I'll go to Ms. Helma just yet. My difficulty roots from the fact that I haven't memorized the arcs and coordinates of the unit circle. I'll do my memory crunches rigorously, and if I'm still having a hard time, that's when I'll go to her.

I hate being bad at math. I hate being bad with numbers in general. I hear a lot about the multiple intelligences and I agree with their theories, sure. But studying for the entrance tests, and a number of senior year subjects in general, shows the prominence and necessity of logical-mathematical intelligence over linguistic intelligence and musical intelligence. Logical-mathematical intelligence doesn't only cover math and numbers, but it reflects one's skill at critical thinking, argumentation, analysis and the like. My lack of which, I believe, is part of the reason why I failed at debate. (The other part was a lack of self-confidence.) I was always too subjective, so grounded on marshmallow soil. I could've never survived the high school politics. A salute to Elise and the rest of the team for all their achievements to date.

I've often thought of myself as only having half a right brain, and an occasional left brain. My IQ's nothing special, and my EQ says that I have the leadership potential of a pile of newspapers. Yet, I look at myself with hope. Maybe, just maybe, I might have something that'll give me a notch up on others. Maybe, just maybe, I can use it to my advantage when I finally discover what it is. Maybe, just maybe, I can get by.

Is it possible to feel humiliatingly stupid but not entirely unintelligent, at the same time? It sounds like such a paradox, but I shall willingly testify to the veracity of this statement.

Na segunda-feira, dia 10 de Março , o programa “Prós e Contras” da RTP-1 foi subordinado ao tema ”Monarquia e República”.

O debate moderado por Fatima Campos ferreira teve entre outros oradores o Presidente da Causa Real, Dr. Paulo Teixeira Pinto, e o António Reis, Grão-Mestre do Grande Oriente Lusitano.

República ou Monarquia?
Paulo Teixeira Pinto, presidente da Causa Real,
António Reis, Grão-Mestre do Grande Oriente Lusitano.

Ética republicana ou ideais monárquicos?
O que divide hoje os dois regimes?
As experiências europeias…
Fundamentos e valores políticos…
Paulo Teixeira Pinto, António Reis, Medeiros Ferreira e um conjunto alargado de personalidades monárquicas e republicanas.

O DEBATE:
1ª parte : mms://195.245.168.21/rtpfiles/videos/auto/proscontras/pcontras_1_10032008.wmv

2ª parte:
mms://195.245.168.21/rtpfiles/videos/auto/proscontras/pcontras_2_10032008.wmv

3ª parte:
mms://195.245.168.21/rtpfiles/videos/auto/proscontras/pcontras_3_10032008.wmv

Só poderá exercer a "profissão de trabalhador da sexualidade", aquele que tiver "o registro profissional expedido pela Delegacia Regional do Trabalho", ainda que "trabalhe por conta própria". Mas, para ser "trabalhador da sexualidade" autônomo, obrigatoriamente deve estar inscrito como "segurado obrigatório" do Regime Geral da Previdência Social, caso contrário não poderá receber o registro profissional pela DRT. O objetivo do deputado é dotar os órgãos competentes de melhores condições para controlar o setor e, dessa forma, conter os abusos.

Atualmente a sexualidade é um tema que está presente em todos os momentos do ser humano, ao contrário de tempos antigos quando o assunto era tido como pecaminoso. A humanidade saiu de uma situação de total repressão ao sexo para a total liberdade, fazendo parte do seu cotidiano.

O assunto ainda vai ser fruto de opiniões divergentes. Para uns, um avanço social, para outros, uma afronta à moral e os bons costumes. A regulamentação dos profissionais da sexualidade: Este é o tema do Mesa Redonda de Hoje:

Nossos convidados:

-Paulo José Alves Cavalcante ( Juiz Titular da 2ª Vara do Trabalho de Santarém)

-Benones Augustinho do Amaral (advogado e representante da Comissão dos Direitos Humanos da  O.A.B / Santarém

-Tânia Tavares (membro da Associação das Mulheres Domésticas de Santarém )

-Sirlene Sena (Profissional do sexo)

Às 8 horas, na 94 FM, com Breláz

Ha ha ha... I was reading this comment about Anwar Ibrahim's in KPMU - Hujah Anwar kosong dan memutarbelitkan tajuk debat...

Ha ha ha...

Very funny:

Debat yang bertajuk “Bentuk Kerajaan, Esok Akan Turun Harga Minyak”. Apa yang dapat diulas disini adalah debat ini sebenarnya tidak mencapai matlamat yang sebenarnya dan bukanlah pula gagal dalam konteks penerangan yang mana debat ini telah diselewengkan dari tajuk asal dimana Anwar tidak fokus kepada isu dan tajuk debat ini yang sebenar. Mungkin bagi pihak pembangkang dan rakyat biasa yang kurang arif dengan subjek teknikal menganggap debat ini berpihak kepada Anwar kerana seperti biasa Anwar telah banyak memutar belitkan fakta sebenar dan berjaya menyusun ayat -ayat yang membayangkan bahawa beliau adalah pejuang kepada rakyat. Dari segi isi sebenar Anwar gagal untuk membuktikan apa yang telah beliau janjikan dan gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa beliau boleh menunaikan janji-janji yang telah dilakukan pada pilihanraya yang lalu.

Anwar dari tajuk sebenar dengan menekan bahawa beliau akan menurunkan harga minyak sebanyak 50 sen. (Lari dari tajuk dan janji beliau pada plihanraya yang lalu) di mana harga minyak pada masa itu adalah RM1.92 jika kita masih mengekalkan harga RM 1.92 maka kerajaan perlu subsidi sebanyak 50 billion yang mana banyak pembangunan terpaksa dihentikan, projek seperti jalan, sekolah terpaksa dihentikan. Anwar banyak merapu dengan mengulangi perkara lama seperti bail out pewaja dan bail out bermacam-macam lagi benda lain yang tidak diterangkan.
.
Pujian patut diberikan kepada Shabery kerana berjaya memberikan jawapan-jawapan dan soalan yang membuat Anwar gelabah sehingga terpaksa membuat memek muka dan menepuk dahi. Yang menarik adalah apabila Shabery menyatakan bahawa Anwar lah orangnya yang bertanggungjawab dalam pembentukan IPP yang mengaut keuntungan seperti yang dikaitkan oleh Anwar dalam pembentangan beliau dengan mengurangkan reserve kapasiti tenaga eletrik negara dari 40 peratus kepada 20 peratus dan yang mendapat keuntungan adalah IPP.

Source: Hujah Anwar kosong dan memutarbelitkan tajuk debat @ KPMU

This piece was written by an author known as Pendeta

Very funny.... in particular the parts that I bold... especially the ones that imply that ordinary citizens are less knowedgeable...

This reminds me of the old adage - "rakyat masih bodoh"....

Well... I am not surprised if kpmu has this attitude... always thinking that they know better than ordinary people...

Sometimes I think that it is KPMU who is bodoh.... they are stupid because of their condescending attitude...

But nevermind.. this is democracy... (at least in this respect)...

If the KPMU  can say such things about the public (i.e. the rakyat), we can do the same to them too..

Ha ha ha...

Anyway, as was shown in the comments, not all agree with what what Pendeta has said...