Loading
Note: Beware of a website proclaiming to be New Tribal Ventures/An Ishmael Community! Do not reply to any request for information. Our legitimate pages are available on our site here & on the navigation to the left.
HOME

DQ on Facebook!Follow Us on
 Facebook!


FIND OUT ABOUT
What's new
Daniel Quinn
Daniel Quinn's books
Schools & courses
Telephone Conferences
This website
New Tribal Ventures
Ishmael's Annex
Speaking Invitations
Events

THINGS TO DO
Register
Visit Guestbook
Find others
Help us
Order books
Contact us
Telephone Conferences
Special Requests

THINGS TO READ
Essays
Speeches
Dialogues
Parables
Answers to Questions
DQ's suggested reading
DQ's Blog

FOR TEACHERS
The Ishmael Companion
Beyond Civilization
 Study Guide


 

Ishmael Community Guestbook Archive


Back to the *Current* Guestbook Next 15 Records

Sara #15108
NYC, USA - Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 7:48:32 CST (GMT -6:00)

Sorry about that weird post, if it did in fact show up...

maggie --

at the risk of sounding like i'm picking more fights with you, here goes.

you say that we all shouldn't trust doug because his defense of himself is akin to "the lady doth protest too much." ok, so when someone is accused of something they didn't do (just for the sake of argument) and they defend themselves by saying, "no, i never did that, and i didn't mean for my actions to come across that way," that somehow means that they must have really done it, because they're bothering to say that they didn't? ok... your logic is about as clear as the logic used in the new antiterrorism bill...

also, from my experience, it's pretty easy to shake a creepy online relationship. you simply don't reply to the emails, or don't go to that chatroom, or ignore the guy, or whatever. the idea that you are somehow a victim because you were propositioned or because a situation seemed sketchy to you is ridiculous. maybe you live in a convent, and this is your first time being online, but both on the net and in real life, it's pretty much expected that men will hit on women. and that women can turn them down or ignore it or whatever. and it's not victimization, it's just life. even if the situation is sketchy. now, if Doug had kept emailing you offensive things and sending you pornographic pictures of himself and started trying to track you down in real life, sure, you have every right to feel violated and warn everybody. but that doesn't seem to have happened. and if it did, rest assured, we girls can take care of ourselves. we don't need "mommy" warning us about the bad men out there.


David Theis #15107
Hackenheim, Germany -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 7:36:43 CST (GMT -6:00)

I decided to post again, because I really don't know what is going on here. It's just unbelievable. I follow Brent, feeling really sad what this guestbook has become. Really sad. There were times when I felt things here were 'off-topic', but I should have known better. Nevermind. I just say listen to what our dear webmaster says. He is just damn right. People, please, come back to earth again.

Maggie,

nothing to say to you. Really, not a single word.

Debbie,

just today I thought about bringing this up, what you just wrote. I often wondered why feminism is more important than racism. I would wonder the same if it were the other way around. I said it before making feminism the major topic would be nothing else than accusing capitalism or communism or religion or the media. As long as we don't take a step back and see that all of them are the fruits not the roots, we won't achieve anything. Would the world be a better place if it was ruled by women? Or by blacks? Or by homosexuals? Yes, I know, that's not the POINT!!!, but don't shout at me. I did not make it seem like that.

To me, racism as well as feminism never occured as a problem in my head, but I have to thank my parents for this, because they showed me this one thing: all men are created equal. I always believed that. By heart.

Sara, Veret,

interesting point, movies and TV. I'm really a moviemaniac, maybe like Sara, so it's hard for me to refuse watching them. But it won't stop me from critizising them. Sara said good things about TV, but I guess we both know that the programs you quoted are exceptions. And movies, well, I don't want to talk to much about this, as much as I would like too. Yes, Veret, most movies increase paranoia and hysteria and stereotypes. But there ARE exceptions (as you mentioned) and some of them are so powerful, it would be really sad, to damn them. There are movies that made me really angry, because of what they wanted to tell (e.g. "The Perfect Storm" or "Pearl Harbor"), but there were more movies that made me happy and hopeful ("Almost Famous", just to mention my favourite). Also, the distinction between mainstream and independent is dangerous. There is crap and masterpieces on both sides.

To everyone,

I'm not sure I'll participate regularly any longer here. The past few days made me really think. I started to look around and post on the Delphi forum, because it allows you to talk more specific about certain themes. This guestbook should be what it was once. Referring to Brent, the most important, exciting and mind-changing website. I once found here what I was looking for everywhere. It was great then, but right now it's a disaster. Don't let this happen. Please.


Sara #15106
, USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 7:20:40 CST (GMT -6:00)


Maggie #15105
, USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 7:8:18 CST (GMT -6:00)

Michael--

I actually do appreciate your last post. As it turns out, after I posted last night, I felt that I had said all that need be said...my previous post did not include the analysis of Doug's reply that I'd wanted to do (bedtime-story time) and believed was needed. Then of course, being 3am and no kids to disturb me, I got on a roll...

Thank you also for your remark about what you had already noticed in Doug's reply. I felt sure that some may have noticed SOMETHING amiss--but also that many would not have. Hell, it took me 2 yrs of relating intimately to a mentally abusive man to see the picture, and even then it didn't really get clear til I read a book or two on the subject and could compare research findings and case studies to my own experience.

I want to also thank you for being the only person here to give me the benefit of simple human respect, whatever your personal impressions of me have been. I tried, with perhaps limited success, to say that the creation of Madrone was a response in part to a general lack of that among some posting here. "She" was the wailing, screeching voice of protest, once again, never intended to be a permanent fixture here (or elsewhere), and certainly not a figure meant to make you all the butt of my private joke!

As for the idea that I have never been anything but a figure of deception to you, I have to disagree. Many, many post here and elsewhere under pseudonyms, for the fun of it. As for my reasons for posting on this round at first as jkd, I liken it to this analogy: let's just say that you'd been once part of a live discussion group, but left not just because some didn't want to discuss feminism, but had been highly attackative toward you personally--calling you feminazi, frigid, man-hating lesbian, the like. So then time passes and because you still felt that some in the group had been well worth your time to talk with, you decide to go to their meetings again. But out of fear of encounter with the same nasty folks as before, you put your hair up under you hat and wear sunglasses, some superficial disguise that might give you a moment at least to be incognito while you check out the current membership. Not with any intention to "fool" anyone especially, or be a different "identity" than before--just to find out if it was now safe to be present in the group, and give yourself the out of leaving unidentified if you saw the same attackers as before, before they had time to start in on the painful, hateful bs.

THat describes why I used jkd to begin with. As jkd, I was no one other than me, as I ever am. The psuedonym was the only artifice, and there are some here now who could attest to the virulence of attack that came my way when I originally found this site and mentioned the F word (feminism, of course). Believe me, nothing I said as either jkd or Madrone came close to the likes of Defiant Dave's diatribes!

So, what we have is the fact that quite apart from being abusive, jkd mostly said some things that others were uncomfortable hearing re: feminism and the personal. Other than finally unloading on Brigitte in response to her "oh thank-you mummy" post, I've looked back at those posts and seen nothing worse than a sometimes overbearing or overly maternal tone--but simply to point out behaviors I find objectionable, and to point out the alternatives is neither attack nor abuse. That these things are a source of pretty intense discomfort to those who'd rather not look to the personal in their world-changing kit, doesn't mean that I was being abusive--or even particularly condescending to say what I said.

In any event, no, deceit is not all you have seen from me; my own take on it all is that you have never really experienced any deceit from me at all. The outing of Madrone was only a matter of timing...I hadn't really decided exactly when/how to out her myself, but it was always a part of the plan. Being busted came as the "perfect moment", though of course it left me with little alternative other than slinking away, which as you see I am not good at despite my best intentions! As for reaction to Madrone, it sure seems to me that the biggest problem here is folks taking all this and themselves a bit too seriously perhaps. I can sure see how folks might feel disgruntled and p.o.ed initially to discover Madrone's true identity--but what, really, did I do or say as her or myself that was really so very damaging or awful? That's a rhetorical question that needs no answer to me--just food for thought.

It seems to me that some of you have simply used the fact of my role-play to dismiss what was too painfully true to deal with. As I am used to being the bearer of bad tidings as it were, and used to the outraged reactions to that, I can't say that any of the negative feedback to me is either surprising or anything that I can take very much to heart. Because I have as well been given just such opportunities by other "troublemakers" to see similarly painful truths about myself, I know that no one is harmed, and in fact can be greatly helped by being confronted in this way (or others, most of them not easy to accept)--but those helped by it are only those willing to see, for instance, that for all of one's idealism and deeply felt wish to help the world, memes do indeed live in all of us personally, and need to be addressed in a highly personal way.

Some did not like my approach. Some actually did, and told me so by private post. No matter, I put out there what I strongly felt was and is needed here and everywhere to be heard. I leave it to each of you to look into further, as your own hearts might demand.

Lastly, yes, it might be considered a highly inflamed jump into hyperspace to compare Doug to Ted Bundy. And we all know it's true that the use of an extreme and glaring example is fairly common in trying to illuminate a "lesser-degree" example. Many were the people who said just this when I used Ted Bundy also in speaking of my abusive ex. And 3 yrs later, though I doubt anyone (including me) believes that that man might someday rape and murder women, many folks now know just what I meant about him in saying that. Like Doug, that man has a public presentation of real, nice, very spiritual and clearly unable to hurt a fly. ANd I do not, by the way, feel that anyone here should now dismiss him for his contributions here, or stop talking to him. There are only 2 points I hope to make clear: that women here should be cautious about a personal relationship with him outside of this site or others online; and secondly to highlight the fact that there a real dangers in the world of the internet that women in particular need to be aware of.

I am just one of the people that Doug praised and blessed in his Sunday post, expressing truths and serving life in my own way. I have seen too much good come from my sharing of my particular if peculiar gifts to stop now. I am as needed as DQ, or any of the rest of us in this work--and I do not need the approval of anyone here to confirm that, nor will your complaints or dismissals have the least impact on me.

So, I am happy to let this lie, now. Feel free to go on as you might feel compelled to in response; I'm done, and happy to move on now to other things! I hadn't even intended to come back here, except for what happened with Doug, which was important to reveal. Don't know if I'll be back, for it does seem that the drift of things here is much too abstract for this practical and personally-minded soul. We all have our place, and the things that suit us...not saying there's anything wrong with this approach, just that it doesn't suit me much.

Peace and courage to all,

Maggie


Sara #15104
NYC, USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 6:57:45 CST (GMT -6:00)

Vered -- first off, i disagree in a lot of ways about film and television. perhaps it's because i'm a moviehead. perhaps it's because i'm less militant (not meant in a derogatory way; you just seem much more deeply committed to some of these ideals than i can be right now). i see a lot of the violent things coming out of the US as more a cry for help than a cry for hate. there was a very interesting article on action films and their implications post-9/11 in the village voice about 2 weeks ago. you might want to check and see if it's archived on their website if you're interested in that sort of thing (www.villagevoice.com).

Especially on TV right now, i notice the unconcsious focus seems to be on the ways our culture and its institutions don't work. for comedies, you have things like Will & Grace (about a woman who can't find a straight man she likes enough to settle down with and her gay friends, which some conservatives would consider dysfuncional members of society; traditional institutions of marriage and procreation down the tubes) as well as Malcolm in the Middle (makes Roseanne look like June Cleaver). In the dramatic category you have things like The Sopranos (The Mafia as mishmash of Old World culture and New World greed) and 24 (the world is coming to an end one hour at a time; every possible institution from politics to office loyalties to family and marriage is up for scrutiny here). These shows are incredibly well made. And, in my opinion, they highlight, not the media conglomerates spread of hate and paranoia (none of the shows i mentioned are really about that), but this country's growing comfortability with the idea that our society is broken. from the 50's up until a few years ago, TV always seemed to deal more with convincing people that the system did still work than admitting that it didn't.

The film industry is a whole other issue... there i agree with you about the hate and paranoia, though i think it isn't done maliciously but out of fear and the misguided thought that those things are what the public wants. which is obviously (from a financial point of view) not true; hence the 9-day movie phenomenon and the asses in seats theory (the first term coined by roger ebert, the second coined by me). the only way the film industry can survive is by knowingly creating terrible product that no one really wants to see, then spending millions to market it to death, hoping people will come because they think everyone else is doing it.


Rev. Slick #15103
Kitanakagusuku, Okinawa USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 6:25:56 CST (GMT -6:00)

Konbanwa!

Sorry, just practicing my fledgling japanese. (Good evening, if you're curious.) This will be my last post on this site, so I just wanted to say "Thank you" to all those who took the time to discourse with me. You have all been a big help, and are partly responsible for helping to lift a great burden from my shoulders.

It's interesting, how very few people ever really know what they want until they find it, and how that prize seldom seems to take it's intended form. For some time after reading Daniel Quinn's books for the first time, I was distraught. I felt like someone who had found the Answer to Life, only to find that it was 46, and no one had told me the Question!(I'm sure some of you caught that reference.) Now I knew what was wrong with the world, with us (people, I mean.), but what was I to do with this knoweledge? I have ever been a man of action, if something needs to be done, I do it right away. So when this revelation was given to me, I immediately sat down and began to think about what I could do to effect positive change, to make this place better for my children.

But I couldn't find an answer. Not on that would be considered "positive". To be sure, the ends were just, but not enough for any means that I could come up with. At least, no means that would have any discernable effect, anyway. I'm certain you can see the quandary I was in.

So I began to post these messages, explaining my position, hoping that this would lead me into contact with individuals or groups who had some new light to shed on the problem, some new approach that I had not thought of. There were those among you who did not disappoint (and I am not referring solely to those who responded directly to me, either.)

Taking what I have gathered here into account, in addition to what I have learned in my own studies, I have finally decided what to do about the problems facing us.

In a word, nothing. I will do nothing to affect the destruction, or the survival of society. I am neither a terrorist nor an activist, and it will ill suit me to pour myself into these roles. I will instead do the one thing that is natural to all of us: survive. If Quinn is right, and our society is doomed, then so be it. Our only real duty is to survive, to the best of our abilities, to carry on our species. If we can do this, then we are evolutionarily sustainable. If we cannot, then we will be supplanted by something that is. It's just that simple.

So I don't worry anymore. Que sera, sera. It may seem to some of you like a non-solution, but I consider my focus to be as pure as my motives. You may disagree, and who am I to say that you cannot?

Peace To All Who Desire It, The Reverend Slick.


Webmaster #15102
Arlington, Va USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 5:51:50 CST (GMT -6:00)

"TOLERANCE and COURTESY are our only mandates."

Personal attacks are neither.

This is a PRIVATE website and I will shut down the guestbook if the ad hominem attacks do not STOP NOW.

This resource is here for discussing ideas and issues, not character attacks. There are many places on the web where you are free to attack and belittle each other. Those of us who volunteer and PAY for this site will not subsidize your place to slander others.

Take it elsewhere.


VerevolfTheGrouch #15101
, USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 5:35:46 CST (GMT -6:00)

I am in complete agreement with michael. At this point, maggie, you've done some major damage to your credibility, to the point where I'd be suspicious of anyone who came in here putting forth ideas in agreement with yours, and I'm not happy about that.

"I guess I might have made some mistakes there, now that I see it from her point of view. I just didn't realize how my words felt to their receiver..."

Interesting that you should expect this of others, considering you seem to have stubbornly refused to do the same thing yourself. In fact, it seems that any time your words have hurt their receiver, you seem to also act as if it is the receiver's fault. You, in a hostile manner, tell them to "own their own perceptions" because the way they took your words was not your intent. It seems you still have yet to learn, in your infinite wisdom, that intent isn't the end-all of interpersonal exchange.


michael #15100
Berkeley, CA USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 5:17:43 CST (GMT -6:00)

Brent Thank you for your clear and intimate voice.

Maggie It really is time to give it a rest for a bit. I don't mean for good. I am not trying to patronize you either, I just think that you are at this point further damaging your already self damaged credibility. I mean you really have to allow that most of the folks who witnessed or engaged your alter identities just simply don't trust you at this point, and you can't really blame them. It is pretty sad too because I think you are right on track in many of the ideas that you have raised about violence and abuse. However you are beginning to become abusive yourself. I agree with you that the Web is full of creepoids lurking and stalking. They range from the simply neurotic and annoying to genuine serial killers and rapists looking for victims. And you sure as hell can't tell from the font they use. Is Doug one of them. I certainly don't know. You seem to think that he might be. I found his answers to your allegations a little too cunning which made me suspicious but to compare him to Ted Bundy in the same sentence I just don't know Maggie, that is a jump to hyperspace i just can't make with the information at hand. As far as your ideas about men and Takerdom, sure I am with you there, hell I think that testosterone is at the root of Taker culture. But really I think that you have reached a point where you are losing ground with your arguements everytime you post. So maybe just give it a rest. I am not trying to silence you. In order for your voice to have some power it has to have some credibility, and at this point that is just going to take a commitment to honesty on your part and some time.

Michael

I suppose this means that I haven't left after all. Hmmm.


Brent Housteau #15099
Oakland, CA USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 4:19:1 CST (GMT -6:00)

Peace to all, which we "all" won't have until we all are willing to take a stand against all of what makes this world such a very sad place to be,

Ok, if you say so. I think its pretty sad that someone who so despirately wants to change the world thinks that deceit will affect any positive change. How are we suppossed to have faith in your message, when our only experience with you is one of deceit?

Brent Housteau


Brent #15098
Oakland, CA USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 3:32:15 CST (GMT -6:00)

$0.02?


maggie #15097
, USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 2:55:25 CST (GMT -6:00)

As I, too, am having a touch of insomnia, I thought I'd toss in another 2cents worth. First of all, to name abusive behavior is not abuse, it is naming abusive behavior...never pretty but always needed...and the kind of strictly shaming, name-calling, "it's all about YOUR problems" posts I received from Doug were abusive. For those unfamiliar with the research on abuse, the hallmark of it is irrational rage that is expressed entirely through projection--such as name calling. The abuser doesn't say, "I'M angry/hurt/whatever about what you did". They say "YOU are psychotic, neurotic, deceitful, etc". They also twist the words and meanings of others' words to make it seem as if all the problem lies with the other, and not a bit with themselves--"she deserved it", in other words. And often bring in material unrelated to the actual actions of the victim or unrelated to actual exchanges between them.

Doug himself supplied a great example of this, in his skillful way designed to maintain his "spiritual guy" image:

"A new visitor coming here and asking, who are all these crazies? A wonderful and totally innocent EX-WIFE of a famous racecar driver [careful to highlight EX WIFE, thus defending his right to make lewd comments about her, as she was not under ownership of another man at the time] slandered in a gossipy irresponsible tirade--this is someone influential who shared our cause, trashed for use as personal ammo. It's so damaging, and the result of bad judgement encountering sheer malice, I suppose. I wouldn't presume to know".

Hmm, do you see it? I didn't "slander" the victim of Doug's sexual references to her (and now in fact he has come much closer to disclosing her identity than I ever did, for I at least agree with him that she is totally innocent here)--slander is lies told about another, and I told the truth about Doug, not "trashing" his female interest, but stating the facts of Doug's behavior (how could any of this possibly be about her, anyway?). That's manipulation #1, mark of an abusive personality, to twist the other's intentions and words to maintain their self-image and image to others.

#2--name-calling: in one brief paragraph, I am called a trasher, a user (cruelly using an innocent bystander as ammo), a slanderer, gossipy, irresponsible, malicious, and a person of poor judgement. Followed of course, by that all-excusing and lofty, "I wouldn't presume to know", as if we didn't all just see that you do indeed presume to know!

Come ON, people, doesn't anyone here think perhaps that the fellow protesteth too much? Me, if I were out there as one of the audience, I'd have a hard time believing in someone's innocence if they didn't just come out and say "wow! I had no idea I was coming off that way to her...so sorry for the unintended offense, I guess I should think about this" Or maybe "I guess I might have made some mistakes there, now that I see it from her point of view. I just didn't realize how my words felt to their receiver..." Or almost ANYTHING besides carrying on with his trashing of me, of course now in that lofty backhanded way, rather than the straight out hostility in his emails...where, in private, he carried out his abuse unchecked by social norms or the need to protect his image in the eye's of others--another classic hallmark of the abusive type. Most abuse is carried out behind closed doors.

But before I take on too much of a victim's mindset here, I will confess this: in one of his earliest posts to me, I did catch wind of what might be to come, and thought twice before carrying on. Didn't listen to my intuition, and thus colluded with my abuse...and this is an important thing. When I had a bad feeling about Doug's mindset and intentions, I should have simply told him that I wasn't really interested in further exchange. However, I did see the commonalities he had pointed out--and thought it worthwhile to see if I could clear up a potential misunderstanding. But as I soon discovered, it wasn't about a "misunderstanding" (as it never is with this type); it was about a man who felt HE had the right to insist on a certain type of energy from me no matter what MY interests/intentions with our exchange (remember "there's not 2 in the conversation unless YOU respond to ME")--and as well, felt he had the right to trash me for not being interested in the same type of conversational content as himself. Gee, I don't know, but for me there's been several occasions in life where after the initial interest and seeming commonality, 2 people just decide it's not really what they were looking for--and part ways without further ado. Nobody's problem or fault at all.

As for the ex-wife, I have to wonder what she might feel about his comments to me about her body and age...somehow I doubt she's been privy to that.

Sorry guys, but I can only say again that NAMING abuse is not the same thing as being abusive. It's too bad that some need to see it that way, because it is that very attitude which makes it possible for so much abuse of women (and children) to occur every day.

By the way, to be clear: what Doug did to me (and apparently is not quite done doing) does not necessarily make him the next Ted Bundy. Perhaps he never has and never will raise his hand against any woman, man or dog, and I do not mean to imply that he will. And it is also true that his behavior (privately to me as well as publically in these pages) follows the same pattern of those such as Bundy or your common garden variety wife-beater, perhaps differing in degree, but not differing at all in essence. It all springs from the same internal source of deep deep pain and rage that must find it's outlet SOMEWHERE. And in this culture, women, children and animals are seen as fair game for this.

Now, think what makes you feel best, but when I woke up with this on my mind, I knew I should post again. And I am not one to often deny my intuition. For all I know, there are women reading this right now who are in an abusive relationship with someone, for whom the light is switching on. Women who don't know that blame and name-calling and the attempt to control a relationship are forms of abuse. Women who think that if he's not hitting her, then it's probably ok, or that his rages are somehow her fault, and she just needs to try to understand him better. Women raised in abusive households, who do not realize that they are perpetuating, unwittingly, the cycle of abuse...women and men who are reading this and suddenly seeing that mental and emotional abuse REALLY ARE ABUSE, and in some ways more life-and-spirit damaging than physical abuse.

Yeah, Doug, I've been there. ANd I know it makes you feel so much better about yourself to think that I, a sometime victim of men's abuse, am only seeing it everywhere because I just can't get out of my victim's mentality. I know that neither you nor any of your fans here want to think that maybe my history as a victim has instead, made me more sensitive to the early signs of the abusive personality--and has made me utterly unwilling to collude with anyone else's abuse by failing to speak up when I see what I see.

DQ and numerous others can speak all they want about abusive agricultural and business practices, and no one thinks they are merely slamming the system because one time they were a victim of it. And we can talk all day about abstractions of all kinds, and the ways that memes live in culture and how we really need to stop that/change them. But damn, no one better talk about these things in personal terms, no way uh-uh. No one should have the nerve to say that the sadomasochisic nature of takerdom lives in any of us, personally, or suggest that one's personal behavior might need changing or even looked at, at all. Because that wouldn't be civilized, not the proper discourse for this site, not applicable to us anyway, certainly not the way to change the world!

Well let me close by saying that IN THE REAL NEWS, Doug and fans, what is happening with Enron is only the same thing in macrocosm as what takes place in the microcosm every day in most people's lives. What is happening in the environment, or in Afghanistan and Palestine, is only the macrocosmic manifestation of what manifests in the microcosm of personal lives, every minute of every day on this planet. Just as taker memes live in business, politics, and agriculture, so do they live in each of us. It's all about domination---and the longer this species indulges in the domination mind, the more alienated from life we all become, and the angrier and more distressed we all become...and that distress, we all have the potential to manifest in our very mundane and personal lives.

Tell yourselves and all who will listen that it's just not right to get so personal about this. And when you're done, consider all the insane world changers throughout history who took it very personally, and became very personally involved, indeed! I have lived through far worse vilification and dismissal "by reason of insanity" than you guys will ever know. I have also lived to see the day that my detractors either finally got the point and told me so, or faded into the woodwork because they were too ashamed of themselves, and too stuck in their beliefs and the need to be right, to ever want to face me again. At least one of the latter was yes, a man who abused me and my children horribly.

And that doesn't make me a professional victim, ever-ready to grind my axe, or insane or whatever. It makes me one highly perceptive cookie and one very determined woman--for unlike most of you who posted to shame me, I know the price to life AND TO INDIVIDUAL, PERSONAL LIVES, of keeping silent.

Peace to all, which we "all" won't have until we all are willing to take a stand against all of what makes this world such a very sad place to be,

Maggie


Brent #15096
Oakland, CA USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 1:20:56 CST (GMT -6:00)

Hi El Mono Loco,

It's hard travel You'll wear out your shoes crossing our doorstep

I want a refund! Nobody told me it would be this difficult. Why-oh-why didn't I take the blue pill? ;-)

Thanks for the poem. Keep em coming.

Best,

Brent


El Mono Loco #15095
Portland, OR USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 1:14:20 CST (GMT -6:00)

Oh, screw it. Didn't work.

Check out the Delphi Ishmael Group if you want to see the poem with the right formatting.

If not, god bless. :)

el mono loco


El Mono Loco #15094
Portland, OR USA -
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 1:11:40 CST (GMT -6:00)

Sorry..the formatting on that poem was all screwed up. Here it is, easier to read (hopefully):

"A Farewell To The Taker Story"

I don't speak your language anymore

I don't make sense to you

I've left without you

Me and a thousand little birds

We've left

Because we don't make sense to you

Because we don't speak your language anymore

We've gone far away And found our homes among you

It's hard travel You'll wear out your shoes crossing our doorstep

Shaking hands with each of your ancestors You find us here at the end of the line

You'll find us there singing songs and weaving cloth all the way back to where it begins, now

It's already over so it must begin again, you see

A people that came after they've already arrived

* * *

el mono loco

http://www.urbantribeschool.com


Next 15 Records

Top of page
Site design and content, © 2017, Daniel Quinn