You see now-I KNEW it was just a matter of time before that happened and I was a shortie in comparison! :P Finding it hard to say all ya need to in one post, eh? heheehe hardee har har... :^D

Victoria, now you say you sent Joy a "joke"? So why did you say Joy lied the other day? I'm dissappointed.

Sue, I hope your child's okay.

Nick and Vlad, breaking into the Guestbook when Carolyn closed it? Come on! Do you just sit at the computer all day and post? Don't you have a lives? (This applies to me too.)

Yes, Vlad, NOW you are posting without venom. Now that it has been pointed out to you for the umpteenth time. Still, thank you.

Did you notice something else? Things she did NOT say? She did NOT single me out for any chastisement in the post to which you alluded. She did NOT say she wanted me to leave. She did not come right out and blame me for any of it, period. Of course I am to blame to an extent, but not just by my mere presence, as seems to be the reasoning of some. She only thanked you for sticking around. This in contrast to those who did not. I don't think that is much of a compliment. Heck, she did not specifically thank Lem or Sue or Chuck for sticking around either. Does this imply she would rather they leave?

If the book doesn't fit,
We must never quit!!

What a picture... you and Nick with Poo in a life-boat... Hey, maybe Carlos will use THAT as an example, instead of miners. But that might not work... let's see... to save you and Nick we have to save Poo... hmmmmmmm... dunno Vlad... I sure do like ya a lot... but hey. :op

Nice assumption o blind-as-a-bat. The emails she receives are automatic emails generated from every post made. The board is set up 2 email her everytime someone posts. They are just for her information, not from individuals.

I don't like your earlier comments on women and I don't believe you could really believe that

And the way I see it, I came up with whole truths and facts that you could not and did not answer at all. Not even a little. Your half truths, oh hell, let's just call them what they are, LIES, were no reeponses to the facts that I have brought up. You have made false accusations or racism, admitted they were misteks, and refused to even apologize for your slanderous comments. You are a worse than a moron. You are a liar.

"I responded with the facts."

You have yet to respond with a single fact yet.

"I was there so I know."

Given your propnsity for lies, I doubt you know anything.

" Then you repeated your half-truths and smears and said you had "won"."

If ANYONE repeated half-truths, it was you, Repeating that KPFA received no federal funding, repeating that certain people were racist, repeating that we were trying to deceive people. These were half truths. Not my TRUE facts.

"Calling your own personal interpretation "truth" and mine "lies""

Honey there is nothing personal about my interpretation. I was quoting interpretations from people actually there and from police reports, articles and such. I dug up the definition ofthe term violent and it applied in this case. YOU had NO REPONSE but to insist it wasn't violent even in the face of the fact that it clearly was!

"and saying you "won" makes it so, according to you."

I clearly did win. I was not teh one who resorted to lies. I was not teh one who resorted to slander because I couldn't make a point. I was not the one who had to make up facts and then refuse to admit they were wrong when soemone posted financial statements that proved me wrong.YOU did all these things, and you have yet to admit your many mistakes.

Since from the beginning you did not have an open mind your interpretation of events has no validity as far as I'm concerned."

"I have an open mind to facts, not your banter and lies.

"Say or think what you want."

Isn't that what this is about?

"You can't control my thinking."

Even if you did any thinking of your own, I wouldn't want to control it. I just enjoy proving you wrong, and I do it well.

"Blame the liberals."

Blame the conesrvatives, opps.... I mean the fascists.

"The above link has a description of events, which is biased by the protesters, granted, but I believe tells the truth."

Ahh yes, save pacifica.net, a truly unbiased and free source. Yes THIS is the truth. YOU make me laugh.

"Aaron, sometimes I think maybe you're really a member of the Democratic Party pretending to be a conservative Republican in order to make them look bad and get Republicans to change their affiliation."

That's ok. It doesn't surprise me that you have to come up with lame accusations like this in orderto keep from admitting you are wrong. You have brought no facts to the table, only rhetoric. You have been proven wrong several times, only to refuse to admit it. You have been proven to use stereotypical thinking, only to turn around and acuse others of the same. And you have refused to think on your own, only spout the latest andmost convenient liberal rhetoric and then get offended when it is countered and rebuffed with facts and/or logic. On top of that, you make gigantic assumptions about people you have never even met and purport them as truth. "Joy is a police officer and knows how to lie"? You dodge the central issue and say that we just want the radio station shut down. You call us fascists because we disagree with your slanted and narrow view. Your insecurity and allergy to the truth shines in every post you make.

"Maybe Joy's really a pro-abortion radical feminist posing as a pro-life conservative to promote the liberals' stereotypes of pro-life conservatives."

Maybe you are a hard-core right winger trying to make liberals look as stupid as they can be. Nah, you're just a moron.

"You, Joy, Vlad and Ted act as if you were a charicature of pro-life conservatives created by a pro-abortion liberal."

And you act worse than the worst caricature I have ever seen of the dumb, thoughtless, knee-kerk, head-in-the-sand, reactionary, allergic to all facts liberal that I have ever seen. This is a new low, even for you.

"Michael, thank you. As often happens, you rebutted Aaron better than I ever could."

He didn't rebut a single thing and has spewed hatred since he came on here. At one point you even shouted at him. But, being the self loathing liberal that you are, you look to him for help when you can't get the job done yourself. What he says about women, he is certainly right when it comes to you.

"I don't like your earlier comments on women and I don't believe you could really believe that, but I appreciate your more recent ones."

Calling your own personal interpretation "truth" and mine "lies" and saying you "won" makes it so, according to you. Since from the beginning you did not have an open mind your interpretation of events has no validity as far as I'm concerned. Say or think what you want. You can't control my thinking. Blame the liberals.

The above link has a description of events, which is biased by the protesters, granted, but I believe tells the truth.

Aaron, sometimes I think maybe you're really a member of the Democratic Party pretending to be a conservative Republican in order to make them look bad and get Republicans to change their affiliation. Maybe Joy's really a pro-abortion radical feminist posing as a pro-life conservative to promote the liberals' stereotypes of pro-life conservatives. You, Joy, Vlad and Ted act as if you were a charicature of pro-life conservatives created by a pro-abortion liberal.

As for you Michael.

"By the way, MAKE me f*** off, loser. Empty words from an empty mind."

"LOL, what an child. "No ... YOU Are!" Nighty night, Arror."

And let's not forget that you are so stubborn you must make up definitions of words to weasel out of admitting that you were bested in a verbal spar. But you want me to make you fuck off?? I'll tell you what. I live in the Denver, CO area. Anytime you want to meet and settle this you just give me a holler when you are in my neck of the woods. We'll settle this in a way that won'tleave you the option of weaseling out. Say the word and it shall be done. This is not a threat but an offer, you only need decline or accept.

" He KNOWS all protesters don't care about their causes. He KNOWS the shot was fired by one of the protesters He has no basis for that knowledge, or any facts to back up his claim as he chastises you for, but that's ok, he "knows.""

"Protesters don't CARE about the causes. This was clearly done out of rage towards the station, as were the riots. They definitely DID SHARE the agenda. Your ludicrous, baseless theory that someone did this to make the rioters look bad is insanely stupid."

It doesn't get any emptier than you, Femefuckface.
Femeturd - fuck off!.
Again, you are full of shit.
What I mean is get your head out of your ass and stop spewing lies!
This is more than I can say for the many tasteless, brainless, and thoughtless statements you have made. Grow up!

Monica, you have got to be the biggest jackass on the face of the Earth. NOT ONCE have I lied. Not once have I distorted facts and not once have I knowingly made a statement that wasn't true. FUrthermore, YOU have tried to smear and slanderme. YOU have lied. YOU have misrepresentedand YOU have tried to pigeonhole all you disagree with, slapping the fascist label on anyone who dare cross you. You are the fascist. Your smear tactics would make Hitler jealous.

"At least I'm not so arrogant and narrowminded as to assume that anyone who doesn't share my political beliefs is not "intellectually enlightened"."

My opinion about your intellectual enlightenment has nothing to do with whether or not your political beliefs coincide with mine. It has to do with the fact that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, that you make false statements and accusations, that you spout the same liberal rhetoric and label anyone who contradicts it with facts, and that you can't think for yourself. You are ignorant and intellectually stunted, not to mention narrow-minded.

"I don't belittle and smear people for disagreeing with me."

You care about putting out your own twisted version of events to smear anyone who doesn't share your rightist viewpoint or gets in the way of your group having control of the country.

" And like I said before, you aren't intellectually enlightened enough for conservatism."

Protesters don't CARE about the causes. This was clearly done out of rage towards the station, as were the riots. They definitely DID SHARE the agenda. Your ludicrous, baseless theory that someone did this to make the rioters look bad is insanely stupid.

"It could be someone who shared the same agenda as the people who wanted to shut down the station or even someone trying to shoot at someone in the street and the bullets got into the office by accident."

Yeah, one of those conservative Berekely citizens. I am dying laughing over here.

"Since we don't know who did it we can't know. You are making assumptions to back up your bias."

So you can't say for a fact that I am wrong then, can you?? I am making some pretty logical assumptions based on some supporting facts.

"You call it what you want."

I'm gonna call it what it is, unlike you.

"The ones who tried to take over the station in my opinion were the people who got on the Pacifica Board who didn't share the philosophy of Pacifica founders and KPFA station and staff and the KPFA staff, listeners and community resisted the takeover."

well lets look at this quote:

"Station critics picketed Pacifica and KPFA and held a rally outside the buildings Wednesday. Fabbri said that crowds broke down the station's door and that Pacifica employees fled to a location she said she did not feel safe disclosing. She said Pacifica has requested federal mediation to defuse the crisis."

So once again facts refute your opinion.

"I maintain it was a peaceful protest and not a riot."

Yet another example of how facts contradict your opinion.

"I have a right to say and think this."

And I have the right to say you are wrong, which you are.

Its obvious we have different opinions and you won't change my opinion (except to the extent of turning me off to conservatism forever) and I won't change yours."

So who was it? One of those "conservative" Berkeley-ites??? It obviously was someone who had the same agenda as the protesters and quite possibly one of the protesters themselves. I don't give a damn that "some people" condemned it. Some person fired the shots. That is violence!

"the police initially didn't want to make arrests, and the manager ordered citizens' arrests of all people in the station, including staff who were there to work. "

Again this is pointless. Police don't WANT to make arrests for petty riots like this. It’s their job. You obviously can't read at all.

"What I read is a description of a non-violent protest that a person on the other side falsely characterized as violent. "

Well let's examine the definition of violent since you obviously don't know what the word means.

Mirriam-Websters Dictionary defines violent as follows:

"vi·o·lent (v -l nt)
adj.
1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force.
2. Having or showing great emotional force
3. Marked by intensity; extreme
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent. "

So we have people taking over a radio station, gunshots being fired, lawbreaking "protests", police being called in, several dozen arrests, and physical confrontation with authorities. Sounds pretty violent to me! I call them riots, and I have the facts to back it up.

"" Can't you read?" The fact that I don't share your bias doesn't mean I can't read. Can you?"

You don't know this. And even if it was, it was only one individual acting against the wishes of the other protesters, whose leaders condemned the act.
The facts the some people condemned it doesn't change the facts.
It shows shows the shooting was not representative of the protests. "The incident with the shots was NOT part of the protests. There was NO RIOT." They were violent riots where police came in to keep the peace.

When the manager the Pacifica Board brought from Texas called the police, after people came to the station when they heard the plug pulled on the News, the police initially didn't want to make arrests, and the manager ordered citizens' arrests of all people in the station, including staff who were there to work.

What I read is a description of a non-violent protest that a person on the other side falsely characterized as violent.
" Can't you read?"

""It is a mutiny," Fabbri said. "We have not locked out the staff, we have placed them on indefinite administrative leave until this calms down. This confrontation has been violent from day one. We've received death threats, we have been followed. We feel very unsafe and threatened." Founded by pacifists after World War II, the network has always prided itself on offering listeners a left-leaning alternative to commercial and mainstream public radio. It has weathered many labor disputes, but no one can remember a conflict as ugly as the one unfolding in Berkeley."

Good, so you admit you are wrong. Glad to see it.

"Thats when she said they wanted the station provided free. " No one ever said that the protests by KPFA were about getting the station funded for free. No one.

"If you like, I can scroll back and find the entry later."

You can't find it because it was never said. I have already asked you to find it and you haven't, for obvious reasons.

"But I'm glad at least you're admitting that isn't true. "

I've never said it was true. I'm so sorry that you have a weakness for facts.

"I think KPFA could manage without the government funds. They could make cutbacks or maybe listeners or supporters would donate the difference. "

I think so as well.

"I already said in the entry before yours that the protesters and staff all denounced the one incident of shots fired into Pacifica offices a few months before the protests and disassociated themselves from it."

So what? One of the rioters obviously did it. They can condemn it all they want but shots fired = violence. Plain and simple.

"So why are you bringing that one incident with the shots up and linking it with the protest after I already addressed it?"

Because you didn't address it. In your quest to bend the truth to fit your narrow viewpoint you are dodging the issue.

"I think you're not interested in the truth, just in manipulating people and spreading disinformation. "

I don't think you'd know the truth if it sat on your face and wiggled. You have constantly spewed out half truths and distortions, misrepresented facts and tried to put words in our mouths. You have made false accusations of racism and refused to admit that you were wrong until backed in a corner. On top of that, you are trying to pigeonhole me in the above statement. Quite a common liberal tactic for someone who has no facts left.

"Assembling without a permit and breaking laws is not in itself violence."

Oh no?? Firing gunshots is violent. One of the rioters did that.

"No protester ever hurt anyone. The police did hurt some protesters."

I already said in the entry before yours that the protesters and staff all denounced the one incident of shots fired into Pacifica offices a few months before the protests and disassociated themselves from it. So why are you bringing that one incident with the shots up and linking it with the protest after I already addressed it? I think you're not interested in the truth, just in manipulating people and spreading disinformation.

Monica, your weakness for facts is exceeded only by your ideological myopia. NOBODY said that the protests were about keeping the station 100% funded by the government. Let me repeat that because I feel it needs repeating. NODBOY said that the protests were about keeping the station 100% funded by the government. I challenge you right here and now to prove me wrong on that point.. No reader would get the impression that this is what anyone said unless they were galactically stupid AND unable to click on a link. Joy said from the get go how much they received in federal funding and she also provided a link to their financials. All anyone has to do is look at the financials that she provided a link to. No reader with any grasp of facts (which excludes you) would get the impression that KPFA was 100% funded by the government given the information provided. Period.

"Then one of the posters on this board had to admit the tax money only covered 10% of the budget and the other 90% comes from listener donations, other private contributions and volunteer labor. I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of saying the KPFA listeners wanted the station free."

We stated from the get go that this was how much money they received! Do you have absolutely NO short term memory?! There was no inaccuracy except on YOUR part when you stated that they received NO federal funding. The only mistake was made by you. And as I clearly showed, KPFA could not operate without the federal funding unless they made major cutbacks or decided to go into the red (that means have net losses).

"I said that I myself think accepting government funding was a mistake and a compromise of the original mission of the Pacifica Foundation, which was to refuse advertising revenue and other funding from large institutions in order to have an independent station."

Then why are you calling us fascists for not wanting our tax dollars to fund left wing pet projects??? Hrm??

"The comment on "nostalgists for Mussolini" had nothing to do with KPFA. It was a response to a comment Michael made about some posters he thought were trying to control the board and drive certain people off they disagreed with."

I understand to whom the comment was made. What I don't understand is why you made it. Nobody has tried to chase anyone off the board.

"Vlad, thank you for posting the link to the newspaper article which told what really happened at KPFA in July 1999."

Someone said the people protesting to keep KPFA open wanted the station provided to them FREE. A reader would get the impression the government was covering the 100% of the station's expenses and programmers and listeners were contributing or doing 0. Then one of the posters on this board had to admit the tax money only covered 10% of the budget and the other 90% comes from listener donations, other private contributions and volunteer labor. I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of saying the KPFA listeners wanted the station free.
..."
and stated that we didn't want your radio station funded (even partially) by our tax dollars."I said that I myself think accepting government funding was a mistake and a compromise of the original mission of the Pacifica Foundation, which was to refuse advertising revenue and other funding from large institutions in order to have an independent station." You had nothing leftof substance to say, so you resorted to the famous insult that all liberals do when they have nothing left: the fascist label. But in doing so you made yourself look even more ignorant since what we are advocating is nothing even close to fascism
The comment on "nostalgists for Mussolini" had nothing to do with KPFA. It was a response to a comment Michael made about some posters he thought were trying to control the board and drive certain people off they disagreed with.

Vlad, thank you for posting the link to the newspaper article which told what really happened at KPFA in July 1999.

While we're on this subject, an answer to a question I didn't get around to answering earlier. Mention was made of an inciden t in Spring 1999 when the conflict between KPFA staff and the National Board of the Pacifica Foundation when someone shot into the offices of the Pacifica Foundation, which at the time were in the same building as KPFA. The shooting was condemned by station staff on the radio and during speeches in peaceful rallies in front of the station a number of times. The protests were non-violent and also legal means were used to challenge the power of members of the Pacifica Board who didn't share its traditional mission.

So, if this is an evil act 9and I’m not saying it is), then by your logic aren’t you doing something very evil by digging up Joy’s comment?? Especially since you purposely left out the apologies she made afterwards?? Can you even see your hypocrisy?

”This is a typical right-wing tactic, to treat all people who do not support their agenda as if they were all part of one unit and all exactly alike, and then equate them with the worst extremes attributed to leftists or liberal.”

Right-wing tactic?? Ahh yes you mean the truth! Again you make a blanket accusation. I’m going to ask you to back this one up as well. Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath. All this from the person who attempted to label all those that disagree with her as “nostalgists for Mussolini”. I find it incredibly ironic that she accuses us of doing things she herself is doing.

”I am a unique, special individual. I thought conservatives believed in treating people as individuals. Yet instead of really reading my words and analyzing them separately, you link them with your stereotypes about "liberals".”

You are a liberal lemming that is virtually incapable of thinking for yourself. You spout the typical liberal rhetoric and then when it is refuted using simple logic and facts (as all liberal rhetoric can be), you resort to namecalling and pigeonholing. You want to be treated like an individual? Then act like one and not like a robot programmed by James Carville. “As for the hijackers supposedly believing they would go to heaven and be with 70 virgins, we don't know for sure if that is true, but if it was, then they were certainly deceived. “

Actually we DO know for certain that it is true. This is a fundamental belief of Islam. If you die in a Jihad you go to heaven, get the 70 virgins or whatever, all is good. They believed this. But that isn’t even the point. The point is they went of their own free will. Whether or not they were being led by some moron in a turban doesn’t change the fact that they made the choice to go. Conservatism is about accepting responsibility for your actions and not shifting blame.

”Would you react the same way to my statement if it came from a conservative who agrees with your views?”

A conservative who agreed with my views wouldn’t peddle this tripe.

”Joy's joke really did in a sense condone the mass murder of people at the World Trade Center, just because they may have exercised the right that American Democracy gives them to vote for the candidate and party of their choice and Joy doesn't like the choice they made. “

I’m not surprised you may think this. But to anyone who can think for themselves it did not condone that act. Make of it what you will, but given your lack of ability to interpret statements, I won’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

”Joy wishes Americans didn't have the freedom to choose between different political candidates or political parties to vote for. “

I NEVER said their act was not evil. You are putting words in my mouth I didn't say to smear me and all people who don't accept your right-wing line. You had to dig a long time to find something to twist and smear me. You are doing something very evil in digging up a comment I made from months ago and twisting it to make it look as if I condoned the acts of September 11. By making the choice to do this, you have given up any right to be respected or loved or feel good about yourself. Vlan, you are disgusting!!!!!

This is a typical right-wing tactic, to treat all people who do not support their agenda as if they were all part of one unit and all exactly alike, and then equate them with the worst extremes attributed to leftists or liberal. I am a unique, special individual. I thought conservatives believed in treating people as individuals. Yet instead of really reading my words and analyzing them separately, you link them with your stereotypes about "liberals".

As for the hijackers supposedly believing they would go to heaven and be with 70 virgins, we don't know for sure if that is true, but if it was, then they were certainly deceived. I never said their act wasn't evil. I said part of the evil was that in addition to the innocent people killed by these acts, the people who order them are wasting the lives of the young men they send to their deaths. Would you react the same way to my statement if it came from a conservative who agrees with your views?

Joy's joke really did in a sense condone the mass murder of people at the World Trade Center, just because they may have exercised the right that American Democracy gives them to vote for the candidate and party of their choice and Joy doesn't like the choice they made. Joy wishes Americans didn't have the freedom to choose between different political candidates or political parties to vote for. When she says God has a preference as to how we should vote, and wants to kill off Democratic voters, she's displaying the same thinking as some extremists in Muslim countries who think Allah wants people to vote for a party which gives the mullahs they consider to be correct Muslims power to run the country. If this act was done by Muslim extremists, their reasoning is probably similar to Joy's.

Saying they are victims IS excusing them from what happened. And yes they did benefit from what happened. Their goal was acheived. And as for them being sent out, they went willingly. Nobody forced them. They went on their own accord and became mass murderers.

Speaking of condoning the terrorist acts of September 11, I found this little gem from Joy.:

- I have a theory about Hillary and New York, but some might not find it humorous. Although it's meant to be funny, so please take it that way. I figure New York has been targeted will all these planes because they elected Hillary and God is really pissed about that. He wanted them BOTH gone. Ok... throw rocks at me if you must. :o] Joy USA - Friday, November 30, 2001 at 11:17:15 (EST) from dialup-64.158.227.156.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net

I wonder how "funny" survivors of the crashes and building collapses or those who lost loved ones that day would find this "joke".

I am not excusing what those suicidal murderers did. I'm just pointing out that since they also killed themselves they did not benefit from their actions. Somebody sends these men to their deaths and has them kill many innocents in the process and is getting something out of it, perhaps power?

Oh God the victim excuse!! LOL Yes they were forced to do it! Someone MADE them. God that is a sad excuse.

"I think it is very presumtuous of some posters to act as if they own the guestbook and have the right to decide who posts here."

I always condemned those who ordered the murders of September 11. This is another lie designed to influence readers against me and liberalism.

Vlad is a racist and bigot and has shown it.

This is quite possibly the funniest, most intellectually-void statement Monica has made...and that's saying something. Because she placed her stereotypes on Vlad, and found racism where none existed, Vlad is guilty, and therefore must explain himself to the false accuser before she will apologize for falsely accusing him. So, to recap, proving that someone's statements aren't racist isn't the right way, you must first prove that you are innocent, THEN the false accusation will be remedied. That is so @#$%&*ing funny I can't sit up straight!

Monica, my dear, I certainly hope that you do all you can for Democrats...you will guarantee GOP victories as far as the eye can see.

I seriously doubt you gave anything Conservative any sort of consideration...I clearly remember you sympathizing with the terrorists who killed thousands of our citizens in September by imploring us to 'understand why' they would do this...and calling us 'right wing extremists' and Mussolini fascists and saying the men here think exactly the way Femecide does, and that we manufactured him to give us an enemy to make ourselves look good. You continuously portray yourself as the victim, and to a point, that's true...you are the victim of an underdeveloped intellect and a high susceptibility to leftist propaganda.

What the article said:

"Protestor Wilford Lewis said that he recently served time in jail for a crime he DID NOT commit, but he didn't have the financial resources to fight."

No it most certainly does NOT show that I am a bigot. It shows that I think you are full of shit when you call us racists or bigots. Nothing in this statement makes me a bigot.

"Why not just say in a nice way that you didn't mean what you said to be anti-Semitic or Racist."

Because 1) I don't react nicely to false accusations of racism, 2) I don't have to. The First Amendment guarantees me Freedom of Speech. I don't have to be nice to you at all. That is my right. As long as I am not slandering you or falsely accusing you of something I have the right to speak my mind. And also, I don't think you are being to nice to me when you take my words and project them to mean something else. Does this mean that YOU are a bigot??

"Then I might apologize."

I don't care if you apologize or not. The more you choose not to, the more your immaturity is revealed, so feel free to refrain from doing so.

"I never slapped labels on anyone."

Wow, you really have no memory at all. You called us facists and you insisted that I have an ulterior motive. You are pigeonholing me because you have no factual or substantive response to what I am saying. You are unable to counter what I am saying so you are attempting to change what I said in order to have something to argue with.

"You're the only people who do that."

Wrong. Just plain wrong. See above.

"That shows you and all people who think like you are BIGOTS!"

Ahh yes, you never label anyone.

"You have convinced me there is nothing good in conservative ideology. Before this experience I was considering it."

Monica, you aren't intellectually evolved enough for the conservative ideology. You don't know how to think for yourself and debate an issue without spewing rhetoric. You should read Carolyn's "You know You're a liberal if.." section. These had to have been written by someone who knows you. You are incapable of thikning independently and using any type of logic and concrete facts. So please, stay liberal. You'd give conservatism abad name.

"Now I will always do what I can to get Democrats elected rather than let any politician who reflects your narrow-minded means-spirited beliefs get into public office."

Take a look at your feeble attempts to break our logic and the verbal smackdown you have received in return. This was not difficult for us because YOU are the narrowminded, mean-spirited individual and you can't base anything you believe on anttning solid. When the foundation is shaky, it only takes a mere gust of wind to blow down the house.

"You've just given the Democratic Party and liberalism a big boost. "

I challenge you to come up with ONE TIME where I have ever attacked you because your ideology differed from mine. I have NEVER done this...EVER.

"I never have."

Oh really?? I guess the Mussolini comment doesn't count, eh?? You have attacked me several times because my ideology differed from yours. This is recorded on the guestbook for all to see. You know you have done this. There is no doubt.

"I noticed you people project alot, saying things about me that are really true for you."

And it is our right to say that you are full of shit."

If you respond that way, it shows you're a bigot. Why not just say in a nice way that you didn't mean what you said to be anti-Semitic or Racist. Then I might apologize. I never slapped labels on anyone. You're the only people who do that. When I criticised the statement I didn't call anyone a bigot. When you said by criticising a statement I felt was prejudiced I was calling someone a bigot and needed to apologize you were saying people don't have the right to say if they see prejudice. That shows you and all people who think like you are BIGOTS!

No. This is NOT telling someone to leave. I find your lack of understanding of the English language unsettling.

"You, Aaron, Vlad, Joy and Ted have personally attacked me on a number of occasions just because you don't agree with my opinions. "

WRONG! I attacked you because you attacked me. Ahh yes, I know, the "he/she started it" excuse. Doesn't make me the most mature person on the face of the Earth. But it definitely exposes your hypocrisy in this situation. Unlike you, I do not attack people simply over ideological differences.

"And again, it is my right to say if I think something is anti-Semitic or racist. "

And it is our right to say that you are full of shit. Even you admitted that you were mistaken. You STILL have failed to show what was so bigoted over the statement. Furthermore, YOU have bene the one engaging in stereotypes, NOT us.

" Do you think someone who believes a statement is anti-Semitic or racist just has to keep their mouth shut?"

I think someone who likes to slap labels on people, the way you do, needs to at the very least, back it up with facts. You have failed to do so. Get this through your head: just because someone makes disparaging remarks about someone who HAPPENS TO BE JEWISH, doesn't mean they are anti-Semites.

"Then you are bigots and I don't apologise for saying it because I'm right."

See above.

"How about taking responsibility for yourselves as Conservatives believe in?"

You, Aaron, Vlad, Joy and Ted have personally attacked me on a number of occasions just because you don't agree with my opinions.
Sounds like someone has a thin skin. If you really want to see an attack, watch a presidential debate. And watch none of the debaters wilt.

And again, it is my right to say if I think something is anti-Semitic or racist. Do you think someone who believes a statement is anti-Semitic or racist just has to keep their mouth shut?
So it follows that we have the right to rebut your statements when we believe they're wrong. I can recall one time when you were the one to call a poster racist because he brought up Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters because he disagreed with their politics.

Then you are bigots and I don't apologise for saying it because I'm right. How about taking responsibility for yourselves as Conservatives believe in?
How is defending our beliefs not taking responsibility for ourselves? And are you going to call me, Aaron, Vlad, Joy, Ted, etc. bigots every time we question what you write? Are you going to keep getting personal when people disagree with your stand on issues?

THis isn't telling Michael to leave or not post?

Where did he ever tell Femecide where to post?? I don’t see that anywhere. You need to learn to read. This is on par with you accusing me of calling you stupid.

“In practice he has shown far more courtesy and respect than many of you who talk about how much you love and respect women but insult and ridicule those who don't toe your line what is "politically correct".”

I don’t think you have ever said anything as wrong as this. He has insulted, twisted words, declared that all women are evil. Proudly admitted he was a misogynist, then denied it, then admitted it again, taken people’s words out of context, made up definitions to words, refused to admit when wrong (except in rare cases when evidence is shoved in his virtual face 3 or 4 times) and pigeonholed people in order to further an argument that he was trying to make. But you know what? He is still one up on you because he at least can admit that he is wrong (as rare as he’s admitted it). You have refused to even acknowledge basic things that you have aid that we have contradicted with FACT (not opinion, but fact). You have called us names and insulted us because we didn’t agree with you. Not even Femecide has done this (not that I have seen, although I have ignored a great percentage of his posts so please correct me if I am wrong). You have slandered us, called us racists on no grounds whatsoever, and refused to apologize for a knowingly false accusation. On top of that, if any of us have fought back you climb up on your high horse and claim that you have been (gasp!) insulted. These facts, along with almost everyone of your posts, reveal you to be the biggest hypocrite I have ever had the displeasure of running across. I didn’t ridicule you because you didn’t “toe my line” (which is FAR from politically correct). I exposed you for the slandering, malicious, ignorant boob that you are. I kept things nice and courteous until you slapped that “Fascist” label on me. You just remember that. Remember that before you get back on your high horse.

“I don't think you, Vlad, Aaron or Joy are any better than Michael or in a position to condemn him. “

I expect people to be prejudiced towards me. That's fine. If they can't get over it, that's fine too. BUT ... there is NO reason my mere presence or posting should stifle anyone here from posting. To say I am the reason is just plain petty. If everything I posted was an endless tirade against women, I would agree, but that's not the case. If my mere presence is such a hindrance to them, I have to wonder how they handle REAL problems in their lives.

I started boycotting k-mart because of the rosie/gun issue, but, when I learned of your situation, I had another reason to spread the word!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/kmart_020122.html

I didn't know that the prolifers and the P-Oed gun enthusiasts :-) could do so much with a boycott. Did you?

Anyway, boycotts are a two edged sword. I'm praying for the employees of KMart who might be adversely affected by various bad management decisions. You too?

Thanks PLers!

Since you've changed your nickname in 'deference', this whole woe-is-me-wounded-party routine has worn itself out. You say "debate the issue, not the person"...normally I would agree with that. However, your first posts here established that you as a person was how you were going to present yourself. Don't bother denying it, in the guise of Casey Kasem (mild-mannered yada yada...it was a good joke at the time) I read through your posts to find your references to women and your hatred of them. Wasn't hard to find. So, when you say people are prejudiced towards you or 'can't get over it', that's not going to happen, and you have yourself to blame.

You see, the thing you're up against is that this guestbook and the other is on a woman's website, for women, by women, and those of us who support Carolyn support women and issues that are important to them and us, among the other things we discuss. That's what brought us here. You, being a hater of women, came here to incite, instigate, and just generally be a pain in the ass...why else come to this site? Don't try to answer that, your earlier posts back me up.

So, when people called you on your posts, what did you do? You tried to parse your words by saying that hate and loathe were not the same thing, claimed that you weren't a misogynist (the hate thing again) yet now proudly wear the badge, and your switchblade post really summed up your mission. You may not be a rapist, you may be one, you may have never been laid, you may use women for sex, you may not be anything that you portray, or you may be all of them and more. In this semi-anonymous forum, your words define you. I could sit next to you on a bus and we would not know who the other was. Everything you say could be a lie or the truth, no way to prove it. Given that, the fact that you came here and posted the things you did about women and your attitude towards them gave most of us our attitude towards you. I don't pretend to know everyone's mind or heart on this, but I can say that there are those of us who either are women, are married to or are related to women, and/or respect women, and the things you have posted in the past are not acceptable (an understatement, to be sure), nor should they be 'gotten over'. If you truly wanted to come here and engage people in debates on issues and the like, then you wouldn't have chosen Femecide as your nom de guerre and hung your hat on it, and then used a variety of excuses and silly semantical arguments to talk your way out of it. You have branded yourself as a women hater, and anything associated with that is going to be attributed to you, by your own deeds and the fact that you are your words, when that's all there is here.

The only reason that I am attempting this is because I would like you to go away. Not because I disagree with your take on some other issues (our death penalty debate had potential, till you took me and Nick and others out of context and dissolved into silliness), and frankly, since you say you can't speak, you have a nice grasp of the written word (dictionary missteps notwithstanding), but I and probably others can't get past your first impression, which will be lasting. So, rather than try to fool newcomers with your complaints of petty attacks by the 'clique' and all the woe-is-me victimhood, why not take responsibility for your actions, and leave? Just because Carolyn hasn't banned you does not necessarily mean that she doesn't want you to get lost, as you put it. I don't speak for her or anyone, but to make that assumption is a little presumptious to say the least.

You accused me of hating you or being full of hate or something of that sort, and it was funny coming from a person who has made hatred their identifying trait. I don't hate anyone...and I will do whatever I can to combat hatred and bigotry when I find it. That's why I get so contentious with Monica (she is so full of stereotypes and left wing propaganda that her watch probably turns counter-clockwise) and with you...there is nothing about a person that you don't know that is worthy of such a final and destructive emotion as hate. The comparisons to a Jewish Issue or Black Issue site are valid; they go towards establishing your intent...again, why come to a pro-woman site and spread anti-woman sentiments and statements, and act all befuddled by the reaction? I don't care why you hate women, I don't care if your reasons are valid or reasonable, I don't care period. I do truly hope that you can figure out why and come to grips with yourself and maybe use your intellect for positive outcomes, and I sincerely hope that whatever you do, I hope you do it elsewhere.

well said, and I concur with the theory behind this statement. The problem lies in this: Many judges do NOT adhere to principles of the US Constitution. They ignore the law in the name of doing “what is right”. The Florida Supreme Court case in Bush v. Gore is a great example. The FLSC, composed entirely of Democrats, 4 of which contributed to Al Gore’s campaign, made a decision that flawed that even it’s Chief Justice, Charles Wells, declared in his dissent that it had no basis in law and would not hold up to further judicial scrutiny. Judges do this all the time. In many ways they are more biased than the politicians. The legislate from the bench and get through precedents that would never pass through a legislature or referendum. There are no words in the English language that can capture how harmful this is to the Constitutional Republic that we have formed. If we can “forget the law” every time we want to pass through something that we think is right, then where does it end?? The slope is slippery indeed and where it will finally stop nobody really knows. Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?? Well take a look at this quote from George Washington.

” If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. --George Washington, Farewell Address (1796).”

If I were to come in here the same way you did but only speaking of blacks or Jews, I would have been kicked out of here a long time ago. I frankly don't get it. You hate women on a woman's site. If I were to come in here with anti-semetic rhetoric, then turned around and changed my name from "AdolfLover" to "Nicholas", I would EXPECT to still be the issue. I would understand why people would want me to get lost. AND, I would expect that people would not be able to separate me from my past issues that I have posted.

Many young UC Berkeley students are conservative or right wing. I thing most of the current young UC Berkeley students are more concerned with preparing themselves to succeed economically than with protesting (although I imagine a few might do both)." (Monica)

I can attest to that. Most students were in agreement with the University when it voted to admit students based on academic achievement without regard to ethnicity. People with a 4.0+ GPA in high school resented sitting next to someone who had a 2.9 GPA, but was accepted to this world-class university only because of his/her race.

I can't believe it. Vic's first post here in a very long time and she has to go and split an infinitive. What's gotten into you, Vic?

This fact is one of the biggest reasons the USA got off track. The Constitution is a SPECIFIC document aimed at limiting and defining the scope and nature of gov power among branches, each one having predefined legitimate functions. The USA got killed because the JUDICIARY, at the Federal level and even lower, took more power than intended and was allowed to, thus upsetting the balance and separation of powers, which keep government honest. Courts arent lawmaking bodies, they can evaulate INDIVIDUAL CASES and the law's APPLICATION to a case party, and not much else. Today, through fiat, courts twist, mangle and rape the rule of law and pre-agreed proceedures, like the Florida Supremes did in Nov. 2000 over their beloved Algore.

There is *no* separation of church and state in the MANNER tried by liberals regards the Constitution, because it describes the federal congress, and not likely state gov authorities. Extrapolating that allowing prayer in schools, if tax dollars are used to pay for the schools, is establishing a religion is too unspecific. Worse, the gov. NOW is unconstitutional because the 10th ammendment prohibits federal control and dollars to schools except by states individually, so Bush's "education bill" is part of the problem we have in obeying the Constitution and respecting it.

Actually, well, *NO*. No privacy is even mentioned in the Constitution, IIRC. Really, the tendency to warp and rape the document is what destroyed Constitutional America, leaving the rule of law in shambles in the USA. To suggest, as Roe v Wade tries, that "penumbras" exist in various ammendments that vindicate abortion rights is legal fiction, and every serious scholar, even if he is in favor of Roe in CONCEPT must agree if honest. To suggest the previous courts, from Taney on down, never mentioned abortion as a right were all wrong and uninformed, is pure self delusion. Again, the argument of whether you think abortion should be legal, etc. or not is *not* material here.

"is my right to say if I think something is racist."

I'm not the one who did that. Will you demand an apology from those who really did? "And, Monica, you definitely need to apologize for calling Vlad racist, because you are DEAD WRONG."

I called Vlad's entry prejudiced because it assumed Lieberman would let Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton dictate his positions, not because it criticised him or Black leaders. There is one major flaw with this post, Monica. Vlad didn't assume, because it ACTUALLY HAPPENED. During the 2000 campaign, Lieberman made a huge about-face when Maxie especially and Sharpie by extension called him on it. That is a fact, which cannot be an assumption, and by extension, cannot be considered racist. YOU are the one who can be considered that, because of all the points that you could have challenged, you took the one that wasn't even there...and used your own stereotypes to do it.

Kill Whitey 101
The American Establishment: How can we bring it down and at the same time label anyone who isn't with us "Anti_American" 135
Fascism: Adopting it's Policies and slandering anyone who won't fall in line with your thinking as such 215

And here is the Masterpiece, in substitute of your Senior Thesis:

Protesting 490: How to wreck the hell out of a place, cause a riot under the guise of "non-vioent protest"

Oh really? Are you forgetting the post election demonstrations at Miami in November of 2000? COme on, break out of your lame excuses and give me an example of extreme right wing fanaticism at Berkeley. I have given you over a half dozen examples of extreme left wing fanaticism. Put your money where your mouth is.

"At Berkeley they concentrate on studying, working and partying. Check out the UC Berkeley paper and you'll see a range of opinions."

So what were they studying when they fired shots through Pacifica's windows, getting arrested and being dragged away, criminal justice??

"We don't know who shot into the Pacifica Offices but KPFA staff and listeners condemned the act."

When did they do this?

"Aaron, if calling someone "stupid" isn't name calling, what is?"

When did I call you stupid? Please point that out.

"If criticising Bush is anti-American, was criticising Clinton and Gore Anti-American when they were president?"

Conservatives don't protest that way. They may write letters or work for political candidates, or attend meetings of the Democratic, Republican or Libertarian Party, or church, synagogue or religious club. At Berkeley they concentrate on studying, working and partying. Check out the UC Berkeley paper and you'll see a range of opinions.

I called Vlad's entry prejudiced because it assumed Lieberman would let Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton dictate his positions, not because it criticised him or Black leaders.

I stand by my right to say when I see prejudice. Ethnic Studies covers the history and culture of Americans of African, Asian, Latin-American and Indigenous descent which should really be integrated into history and other courses dealing with these topics. Vlad, you're put-down of it shows racism, whatever your own background. People will have racist and sexist attitudes because they're not perfect, and I will criticise them but I'm not saying they're not still good people despite their faults. We don't know who shot into the Pacifica Offices but KPFA staff and listeners condemned the act.

Please show me exactly where I insulted you.

"By the way, I didn't say all people in Berkeley were conservative, I said some were, some liberal or leftist. They're not all alike"

Come on, this is the best you got? Lame excuse. Ever see any protests like this in a "conservative" town? Ever see any protests like this at Auburn, Ole Miss, Florida State or Texas A&M? These protesters are a sizeable portion of the student population.

"Thank you for putting the link to that great article on the KPFA events. I'm proud to have been part of the movement for KPFA, which was a non-violent movement."

Monica, you need to learn the definitin of violent. Arrests, death threats, shots fired at Pacifica headquarters, trespassing, people beig draged out of the station screaming. That isn't violence? What is?

"We're not "Anti-American". We are Americans." You are the most Anti-American people this country has ever seen. You care NOTHING about political debate and are very hypocritical.

"Politica debate and movements, including protest, have a history in America, going back to those "rioters" who took tea from a ship in Boston Harbor and threw it in the water to protest the tea tax."

I thought I was the only one who did name-calling. You would NEVER resort to insulting someone just because you disagree with them. Oh, No!

Poo - You better not... there are two misspellings in just one sentence above... and you misspelled, 'mispellings.' lol

“What will you do when Michael decided to find something better to do with his time?”

Noticed that did you? Just continues to demonstrate what petty little people they really are. It's how they puff themselves up to feel better about whatever they do that is wrong and hateful. Same justification any lynch mob or bully usees. When they can't get their way, they whine and cry about it, hoping their tirades will get results, when, in actuality, all it does is make them out to be spoiled little kids.

"Vlad, does Poo's writing style remind you of Miner's style...I've always thought this for some reason...It seems to have the "world's picking on me" flavor we got with the Miner...the sentences ramble, they're long, strung together, tries to sound intellectual but the misspelling and bad grammer makes you forget the point...the desparation in his voice, the apparent lack of experience, he's not bitter yet, more like the youthfulness of a demented little puppy... dunno. ... John

Gee, good to see no one else uses long, strung toghether sentences. We won't even get into the mispellings.

See above. Do you think the rate of males being "abused" is higher than is reported? Why so or why not? Dont know? If you have no science to back up any interpretation, like studies, etc. WHAT should you base a guess on? Again, alot of things arent hard to figure out without ten studies using charts and graphs, if you understand human nature and the effect of social conditions and conditioning and the law and its "teaching" effect on the masses in response to disparate treatment or rights of members of the populace...
Prolifeman
Austin, TX USA - Tuesday, January 15, 2002 at 16:08:38 (EST) from 0-1pool115-234.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net