Irregular Feedback

The following posts are among those that were added in a flurry of free speech to the old Irregular Feedback guestbook.  As you can see for yourself, the editors of Irregular Times have since created a much more user-friendly message board upon which several topics can be discussed as once.

Speech, irregular or not, must be free. So speak freely! Tell us what you think of the Irregular Times pages that you have visited today, and add any additional comments you might have at our new message board.

Thanks for visiting, and please come again!

 Return to Irregular Times.

        Date: 4/30/2002 - 2:27 PM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location: Sydeville, New York, USA
                  The American Heritage Dictionary contains the two following definitions of "freak": 1, A thing or occurrence that is markedly
                 unusual or irregular. 2, An eccentric or nonconformist person, especially a member of a counterculture. -- So yes, "boy", we are
                 freaks, and proudly so. In a culture where those who decide not to march in lockstep with the majority are told to "burn in hell", it
                 seems to us that being a freak is the only honorable thing to do. Best wishes.

            Date:4/30/2002 - 1:02 AM
           Name: boy
        Location:boy, boy, boy
       Comments:You guys are fucking freaks.......burn in hell

            Date:4/23/2002 - 11:48 AM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location:Sydeville, New York, USA
                  Michael, we agree with you that in a democracy like the United States, it is the responsibility of the people to remove inadequate
                 leaders like George W. Bush from office. Keep in mind that the majority of people voted AGAINST George W. Bush in 2000, but
                 our democracy was subverted when he was appointed anyway. Also remember that we don't have the chance to vote George W. out
                 of power until 2004. Many of us are struggling against him in the meantime to undermine his political power, butlegally, there's only
                 so much we can do. By the way, we love your emphasis on power of the people - a much more democratic statement than submission
                 to Allah or to any other god.

            Date: 4/22/2002 - 10:15 PM
           Name: Michael Lueras
        Location: Santa Monica, California, U.S.A.
                   Praise Allah who is the Life in us all, Amen. What does the word "democracy" mean? It is derived from a Greek word meaning
                 "rule by the people". "Demo" corresponds with people, and "cracy" corresponds to rule, or authority. The people rule in a
                 democracy. So the people are responsible for what is done in their name by their government officials. Along with power, or
                 authority, goes responsibility. If one has control over something, then one is responsible for what that thing does or what one does
                 with that thing. So if George Bush makes war wrongly the people are responsible. They could remove him from office. A people
                 united and aware can change their government and its behaviour ef

            Date: 4/21/2002 - 10:31 AM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
             Site:  http://
        Location: Sydeville, New York, USA
                  Um, the challenge was to prove that George W. Bush is NOT stupid. Is this retort, that we should prove that Bush IS stupid, the best
                 you can do? Are you seriously saying that you cannot come up with proof of George W. Bush's intelligence? Is your only defense of
                 Bush that no one has proved that he's a complete idiot? We'll take your challenge, to prove that George W. Bush is indeed less than

                  Is George W. Bush stupid? Let's start with the fact that Bush's advisors won't allow him to make un-scripted appearances. Unlike
                 presidents before him, George W. refuses to hold regularly-scheduled press conferences in which hehas to answer unanticipated
                 questions from reporters. The fact that Bush's advisors won't let the President speak for himself in public indicates that they don't
                 think that he's smart enough.

                  Is George W. Bush stupid? More evidence for his lack of intelligence is his inability to adhere to the basic rules of English grammar,
                 like keeping the same verb tense in a single sentence. George W. Bush commonly mixes the present tense withthe past tense. He also
                 mixes up singular and plural, unable to conjugate the most simple verbs in English. The most famous example is Bush's embarrasing
                 campaign question, "Is our children learning?" The correct sentence would have been "Are our children learning?" This skill is
                 taught in elementary school, so why can't George W. get it right?

                  Is George W. Bush stupid? His ignorance of the basics of history is a pretty clear example of the ways in which his little mind is just
                 not up to the job of President. In February, for example, Bush lectured the Japanese parliament about how the United States and
                 Japan had been allies "for a century and a half", when in fact, the US and Japan have only been allied since after World War II,
                 which ended just over 50 years ago. You'll also remember how when he was campaigning to be President, Bush had no idea who the
                 President of Pakistan was, even though the military coup in Pakistan had recently been in the news. Campaigning for President and
                 not bothering to read the newspaper sounds pretty stupid to me.

                  Is George W. Bush stupid? Well, he got below average grades in college and spent half of his adult life as a drunk, and some say a
                 cocaine addict. That's a dumb thing to do, and alcohol kills brain cells, so we know he could have ended up a lot smarter than he is
                 today. Driving drunk, which he admits to doing and has been convicted for, is definitely a stupid thing to do. Of course, his advisors
                 tried to keep that conviction off the public record, which is also what they do with his public comments and speeches - they censor
                 and edit them after the fact, changing the official transcripts to erase his mistakes! His advisors must think he's stupid if they have to
                 fix what he says - as documented in the Washington Post.

                  Is George W. Bush stupid? He doesn't even understand how the beliefs of his own church are different from the beliefs of other
                 churches, even though he goes to church every week! In 1994, George W said, "The Episcopal Church isvery ritualistic and it has a
                 kind of repetition to the service. It's the same service, basically, over and over again. Different sermon, of course. The Methodist
                 Church is lower key. We don't have the kneeling. And I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference as well, which I'm
                 not sophisticated enough to explain to you." He admits he's not smart to understand how Methodist theology is different from
                 Episcopal theology, so how can he understand the nuances of U.S. foreign policy?

                 Is George W. Bush dumb? He apparently is pretty fuzzy-headed about
                 the economy and basic mathematics. Last year, he was insisting that his tax cuts combined with increased spending would ensure the
                 continuation of a budget surplus. To professional economists, that idea seemed to be kind of stupid. They said so, but George W.
                 Bush dismissed their criticism. Now, it turns out that Bush has admitted that he was wrong, and that the United States will have
                 budget deficits for the next decade because of his fuzzy math. Heck, during the debates, Bush admitted that he had difficulty with
                 math that required a calculator. Is that smart?

                  Is George W. Bush dumb? He said he appointed Thomas White to be Secretary of the Army because White had great business
                 experience at Enron. Actually, White's former employees say that he was dishonest and helped to set up fake partnerships that
                 eventually led to Enron's bankruptcy. White responds that he had no part in the illegal fraud because he wasn't really in touch with
                 the operations of the division he was supposed to be in charge with. So, either White is either acriminal or grossly incompetent.
                 When George W. Bush appointed this man to run the United States Army, it was a very stupid thing to do.

                  Is George W. Bush dumb? He has no understanding of basic scientific concepts, and even worse, he makes up science in order to
                 support his own policies. He doesn't understand the basic science of global warming, genetic engineering, stem cell research, cloning,
                 abstinence education, contraception and missile shield research. Time and time again, he's gotten the science wrong on these issues,
                 even though the correct information was readily available. We're in the 21st century now, and we need a President who
                 well-educated and able to critically evaluate the science behind public policy. When it comes to scientific literacy, George W. Bush
                 gets a failing grade.

                  In just a few paragraphs, I've been able to cite many examples of George W. Bush's stupidity, ignorance and intellectual laziness. I
                 could go on for much longer. As his inept muddling with U.S. policy in the Middle East has proven, George W. Bush just doesn't
                 have the brains to be a good President. Since he's become President, the economy has faltered, U.S foreign policy has disintegrated
                 into a confused tangle, constitutional freedoms have been undermined, and environmental standards have been destroyed for the
                 profits of Bush's big oil friends. All that, and Bush lost control of the Senate in a non-election year! His presidency has been a
                 chaotic mess.

            Date:4/20/2002 - 10:43 PM
           Name: Tristan
        Location: Benton, Arkansas, U.S.
                  By reading this i have to wonder many things about the author, my biggest question; however, is why the author did not back up his
                 claims with some proof. The author did not give any reasons at all why he believes George W. Bush is "stupid". The reason why is
                 because there is nothing to back up his comments with. All the author is is a very moronic person trying to sound intelligent by
                 'dissing" our president. So, to prove me wrong back up your statement with some real evidence.

            Date: 4/18/2002 - 2:24 AM
           Name: Michael Soenksen
             Site: http://
        Location:Somerville, Tennessee, United States
       Comments: Excellent pages!

            Date: 4/17/2002 - 7:49 AM
           Name: Hugh Ferrut
        Location:Charleston, South Carolina, USA
                  Jennifer, It is immature to not really care who the President is, or how he got into the White House, and whether he will be
                 re-elected. It is much more mature to care about these matters, because they make a huge difference in our lives every day. We'd be
                 living in a much better country right now if George W. Bush hadn't managed to get the Supreme Court to appoint him, and I'm glad
                 this website is here to remind us of that. - Hugh F.

            Date: 4/16/2002 - 9:55 PM
           Name:Jennifer Anson
        Location:Los Angeles, California, US
       Comments:I think you web site is immature and OLD. I just think it is funny that it takes people like yourself so long to get over the fact that
                 Bush is President.(No Matter How He Got There) Do you wake up thinking about it everyday? I really don't care if he is re-elected,
                 but it would be great, just for the people that it would torment like yourself.

            Date:4/13/2002 - 8:08 PM
           Name: Theodiclus Lock
        Location: Sydeville, New York, USA
                  Leigh, it does not behoove you to feign ignorance as you accuse others of ignorance. As the article points out, Christian political
                 leaders are using the issue of legalizing mandatory prayer in public schools to further their own political careers with religious
                 conservatives. So too, the Meet Me At The Pole movement is intended to be conspicuous, to exert political, holier-than-thou pressure
                 to make Christian rituals like prayer mandatory for everyone. Shame on you, for feigning ignorance of the obvious political ploy of
                 Christian public prayer!

            Date: 4/13/2002 - 6:05 PM
           Name:  Leigh
           Email: I Don't Have One
        Location:, Alabama, America
                  This was the most ignorant article that I have ever read in my entire life. I am a Christian and proud of it. That verse is not saying
                 for us not to pray in public. It was written to those who pray only to get attention from others. The most intimate place to pray to
                 God is in your room with no one else around, but there are times when us Christians feel we should pray not only in our rooms, but
                 also in church and in school. In my Youth Pastor's and my opinion we think that the way someone prays reflects how awesome God
                 is to them. The bible also says that God disires nothing more than to talk to us and we are not at home 24/7 so it is okay to take a
                 moment or two out of our day to talk and spend time with God no matter where we

            Date: 4/12/2002 - 2:47 PM
           Name: Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location: Sydeville, NY, USA
                  Bill, you miss the point by a mile. You came to this web site and made the strong claim that the United States is not a "democracy."
                 You need to back that up. You have not. Meanwhile, I have backed up my claims with exhaustive documentation that the word
                 "democracy" as used in modern usage is consistent with the U.S. system of government.

                  You seem to be responding with the bizarre claim that widely-respected authorities on modern usage of the word "democracy" are
                 wrong. If people use the dictionary as a reference for what a word means, and the dictionary clearly includes an American form of
                 government as a legitimate case of the word "democracy," you're kind of spitting in the wind, Bill. What you're left with is "the
                 dictionary is wrong; the word means what I SAY it means." Kinda arrogant.

            Date:  4/12/2002 - 1:41 PM
           Name: bill
        Location:Chicago, , USA!
                  So you are telling me that you and modern day academics know more about the way our government was set up and run than James
                 Madison, who incidentally helped write the constitution? Wow! Now that is rich. Talk about elitist SOB's. Anduse all the dictionaries
                 you want, it will never show that republic, based on certain democratic principles, is a democracy. Point, set and match for Bill and
                 the '200 year old dead guys'.

            Date: 4/12/2002 - 11:15 AM
           Name: Peter Cayune
        Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas, USA
                  Bill, get it straight and think! You're arguing that the United States cannot be both a republic and democracy. Has it ever occurred to
                 you that the U.S. could be a republican democracy? Before we go to Kindergarten, we learn that a noun can be modified by more
                 than one adjective, so we can have a barn that is both red and shiny. Your argument is as silly as saying that if a barn is red, it must
                 not be shiny! The U.S. is BOTH a republic and a democracy. Think before you write, Bill!

            Date: 4/12/2002 - 6:59 AM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location: Sydeville, NY, USA
       Comments: I was right. Bill doesn't let the facts confuse him. I'll offer some new information now, and he'll dance around it without addressing
                 it. Then he will insult me again. Watch for it!

                  I have read the bloody Federalist papers, so don't presume. They are a document of the language of the BEGINNING OF THE 19th
                 CENTURY. Furthermore, they are PARTISAN POLITICAL writings that use spin to further their arguments. Don't takethem at
                 face value or as holy writs. The only dictionary definition that agrees with Madison is Webster 1818, in other words a

                  Fast forward two centuries, Bill, and you'll find that the word "democracy" is defined to include ideas like "republic." Shall I pull
                 out some more dictionaries? Nobody except those on the right fringe and two-hundred-year-old dead folks restricts the meaning of
                 "democracy" to direct, immediate, absolutely majoritarian rule. I used multiple bleedin' dictionaries to show you that. What does it
                 take, Bill? What does it take?

                  I think a previous poster had it right - you're using this linguistic charade, but really and truly you just don't like democracy of ANY
                 kind. You don't trust the average person to know what's best for them. Reactionary elitist snob.

                  Bill, a quote from the Enycyclopedia Britannica, hardly a lefty fruitcake operation: "The term has three basic senses in
                 contemporary usage: (1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directlyby the whole body
                 of citizens, acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy;"...

                  ..."(2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and
                 responsible to them, known as representative democracy"...

                  ..."and (3) a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a
                 framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such
                 as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy."

                  So, Bill, is the Encyclopedia Britannica wrong, or are you?

                  A final set of quotes, from an Encarta Encyclopedia contribution, by Richard Pious, PhD, professor at Columbia University: "In
                 many democracies, such as the United States, both the executive head of government and the legislature are elected." Is Professor
                 Pious of Columbia University wrong, or is Bill wrong?

            Date: 4/12/2002 - 1:46 AM
           Name: Bill
        Location:Chicago, , USA!
       Comments:Oh boy! You actually tech poly sci. Now I know why most LAS programs are such a joke these days. Seeing as how your many
                 reading of Marx would have never exposed you to the federalist papers or any other works by the founders, you may not realize that
                 there is a distinct and marked difference in both the form and exucution of a constitutional republic and a democracy. Figure it out
                 before you dig your hole deeper.

                  Oh, and all those 'definitions' you prattled out, very nice. It shows that elements of democracy do exist in a republic, but just
                 because a dog and cat both have four legs, fur, and a tail does not make them the same animal. There are veryfundamental
                 differences. Differences so great that it alters the way in which they work so substantially that no one could say they are the same
                 thing. But keep trying, I am getting a good laugh out of your feeble attempts.

            Date: 4/11/2002 - 9:31 PM
           Name:Darrah 18
           Email: Darrah
       Comments: I simply cannot believe that a glorious Nation has been conned by an idiot, moreover this idiot appears to have little regard for
                 democracy,defined by Chambers,Websters,Oxford or indeed, Uncle Tom Cobley and All!!!!! This President was recently interviewd
                 for British TV we are all becoming familiar with "Bushisms" discussing the middle east crisis, he was heard to state...."when the
                 Inficada started"......therefore, the Ribald Reign of King George indicates we are all in for a rough ride, I say " we " because, as
                 allies we stand alongside, Plonker is the term we brits would use!However, "dangerous" control freak would sum him up better!!
                 Good Luck we are all goi

            Date: 4/11/2002 - 7:47 PM
           Name:W. Andrew Ainsley
        Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
       Comments:  Even if a republic is not by definition a kind of democracy, a republic can also be a democracy! The two are not mutually exclusive,
                 and therefore the US can be both democracy and republic. Would Wierd Bill actually argue that it is impossible for a republic to also
                 be a democracy? It seems that what he's REALLY arguing is that he does not WANT the United States to be a democracy. Shame on
                 you, Wierd Bill! (Typically Republican, though)

            Date: 4/11/2002 - 6:49 PM
           Name:Michael Syde
        Location: Oak Park, Illinois, USA
                  Wait a minute - is this right-wing ditto head Bill the son of William Bennet, the conservative demagogue who makes a living out of
                 telling other people how they ought to live their lives according to his own particular idea of what morality is? Take a look at his
                 email - There are a lot of Bill Bennets out there, but not so many of them are as dense as the republican
                 ditto Bennets. Mr. Locke, you're absolutely right, and the other guy can't even spell.

                  4/11/2002 - 5:25 PM
                  Theodiclus Lock
                  Sydeville, NY, USA
                  I'm not a polisci major - I TEACH polisci majors. Enough academic authority for you there? I don't like to lord it over people by
                 mentioning it, but you've been playing the "my opponents are unschooled game," so thereyou go. Think carefully for one minute
                 about your dictionary strategy. Which is the broader category? Democracy. Which is the narrower category? Republic. Ergo, the
                 former ought to include the possibility of the latter, but NOT VICE VERSA. You're thinking backwards. Duh.

                  Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary definition of "democracy": a) government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b)
                 a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly orindirectly through a system of
                 representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Gee, option b) sure looks like it contains the notion of "republic",

                  American Heritage definition of "democracy:" "a) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
                 representatives." Gee, that contains the notion of the REPUBLIC, dud'nit?

                  Oxford English Dictionary definition of "democracy": "1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the
                 sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or
                 by officers elected by them." OOOH, LOOK!!!! THE WORD "REPUBLIC" IS IN THERE IN SUBSIDIARY FORM! Is the
                 Oxford English Dictionary part of the vast left-wing fruitcake homo commie media conspiracy to make you look stupid, or are you
                 just wrong?

                  Cambridge International Dictionary of English definition of "democracy:" "the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a
                 system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people
                 themselves The government has promised to uphold the principles of democracy. The early 1990s saw the spread of democracy in
                 Eastern Europe. A democracy is a country in which power is held by elected representatives." Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!
                 The liberals are everywhere! They've even changed the dictionary definitions to include republics as a form of democracy while you
                 were sleeping! In merry olde England, even!

                  Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary definition of "democracy:" "1. a form of government in which power ultimately rests with the
                 people, either directly or through elected representatives." Hmmm, sounds like....BINGO! REPUBLIC as a form of DEMOCRACY

                Don't expect pesky things like "evidence" and "dictionaries" to confuse Bill. He's got truth with a capital T straight from God. Let's
                 wait for him to shoot off some more baloney...

            Date:4/11/2002 - 3:41 PM
           Name: Bill
        Location:Chicago, , USA!
       Comments: If as you claim, Mr. Lock, that a republic is simply nothing more than a type of democracy, then why does a democracy operate in a
                 fundamentally different way than a republic? Why does every dictionary I go to have different definitions for each of them, and none
                 of them mentioned Democracy in their definitions of a Republic?
        It is not just a matter of mere semantics.
                 There is a world of difference between a government by the people (a republic) and one of the people (a democracy). Plus, as
                 defined in the diction

            Date: 4/11/2002 - 3:12 PM
           Name: Lou Charles
        Location:Naples, Fl, USA
       Comments: Hey Bill - can you believe these folks? I'm understanding why the service at Burger King is going down hill. The guy who owns this
                 domain is from Memphis - speaks well for the schools in TN that he does not understand basic civics. Probably trained in
                 government schools by union members who are only concerned about sundown and payday.

            Date:4/11/2002 - 2:25 PM
        Location:Chicago, Illinois, USA!
       Comments: A collie may be a kind of dog, but a collie is not a grate dane. A republic and a democracy are two distinctly different types of
                 governments. If they are teching poly-sci majors something else, then it is litle wonder why you all end up working at Burger King
                 after graduation. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Your point is moot, it cannot be
                 proven, it is patently FALSE. We are a republic. Mu original position is correct.

            Date:4/11/2002 - 12:27 PM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
        Location: Sydeville, NY, USA
       Comments: Bill, Bill, Bill. An anti-democratic politico railing about elitists is a bit like a feather calling styrofoam lightweight. As for your own
                 oh so tired "lightweight" accusation, we at Irregular Times have taken our full load civics classes. In fact, some members of our staff
                 actually study politics for a living. Let's go one better than high school civics: as politician and Boston University Chancellor John
                 Silber puts it, "a republic is a kind of democracy, just as a collie is a kind of dog." Do you get it? Or do I need to spell it out in tiny

                  A side note: I suggest readers go to Google and do a search just on the phrase "not a democracy". You'll get about 12,000 resulting
                 web pages that using amazingly similar vocabulary and arguments. The vast, vast majority of these pages come from an odd cobbling
                 together of John Birchers, radical libertarians and conservative authoritarians. They talk to each other and teach each other how to
                 say this stuff, with the interesting notion that if they say it often enough, it mightactually be true.

            Date: 4/11/2002 - 11:39 AM
           Name: Bill
        Location:Chicago, Illinois, USA!
       Comments: Theodiclus Lock: To respond, yes most leftist are elitist pricks. But I was simply pointing out that you and most of your cohorts do
                 not know how our government works, or is supposed to, on a fundamental level. It is almost ironic that this mass of self righteous,
                 academic, intellectual wannabes does not even know that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. The distinction between our Republic
                 and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of
                 government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Minority individual rights are the priority.
                 The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The peop

            Date:4/11/2002 - 10:05 AM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location:Sydeville, NY, USA
       Comments:Chortle, chortle! "Cunstitutional Republic," what a good one there! Hee, hee! "Grade scholl" was a nice topper. The fruit cake thing
                 was a good insult, too. Oh, boy, I'm rolling on the floor here. Gotta get my composure or I'm gonna pee...

                  ...Sigh. OK: Oxford Modern English Dictionary definition of the "democracy": "1a) a system of government by the whole
                 population, usually through elected representatives. b) a State so governed...". A "republic", which provides for governance
                 indirectly through elected representatives, is a form of democracy under this definition. The original Greek simply means "the rule of
                 the people." Against that, huh? And Republicans have the gall to call progressives elitist...

            Date:4/11/2002 - 2:05 AM
        Location:Chicago, Ill, USA!
                  I stumbled upon this site (unfortunately) and had to comment on the first words that came to my attention. "Excuse me, our
                 Republican friend has helpfully reminded us that "we don't live in a democracy." Ok, that explains things." That does explain quite a
                 bit. It explains the average ingnorance level of left wing fruit cakes like yourself. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a
                 cunstitutional republic. Big difference to anyone who remembers anything about even grade scholl civics. Just goes to show that the
                 fools on the Left who piss and moan so much about this great nation of ours, hev not the foggiest idea of how it works.

            Date: 4/9/2002 - 8:49 PM
           Name:Charlie Davis
       Comments:Yeah, right Timothy. In the light of recent revelations about holy Catholic priests, your comment about Christians being free to
                 "prey" wherever they want to is pretty apt. Your ignorance is showing a huge wedgie.

            Date: 4/8/2002 - 3:50 PM
           Name: Timothy Raymond
        Location:Masontown, PA, USA
       Comments: I believe as a cityzen of the USA and as a christain that every individual should have the right to prey or not to prey in school
                 weather or not school or government officials feel it should be allowed or not. Our children today for one have no understanding of
                 the truth of God. If they don't receive the teachings of of christ in church or at home were else can they go. The bible is a living
                 testment of jesus christ and istructions for all humans poor, rich, small large, black or white. For one thing the bible teaches
                 disipline, truths, instructions to teach a person to become spiritually and mentally mature. After all God did inspire spiritual prophets
                 to write it.

            Date:4/8/2002 - 11:27 AM
           Name:Janie Brock
        Location: Reserve, LA, USA
       Comments:Someone I know is refuting the validity of the Corporeal Punishment article (graduate thesis) as a fraud since it doesn't list the name
                 of the author. I would like to prove this person wrong, so could you tell me the name of the author and the school that person
                 attended? I was curious as to why the author's name wasn't listed by the article. Thanks for your assistnace.

            Date:4/7/2002 - 1:39 AM
           Name: Krieger
       Comments:This site is great!

            Date: 4/2/2002 - 7:50 PM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location:Sydeville, NY, USA
       Comments:"Nonwhite person," you're committing a pretty basic fallacy: quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is right. Think about it.

            Date: 4/2/2002 - 5:27 AM
           Name: A view of a non-white person
             Site: http:// dev/null
        Location: Outside US
       Comments: Re: Secrets of the Bible You have taken your selected passages of the Bible out of context and twisted the facts. So here are my
                 points to put them in perspective. Anyway, there's nothing secretive about the Bible. I don't see the link between these 'secrets' and
                 church history. It's like blaming the receipe when in the first place, you don't know how to cook. Genocide I agree with Michael
                 Krogh's 20 Mar 02 postings on the people God greatly detested and His command to the Israelites to destroy them and claim their
                 land. You can read history books on the vile practices that the Ammonites did for their Molech and Baal spirits. Still, the Jews did
                 turn away from God despite warnings (Lev 26:2

            Date:  4/1/2002 - 8:53 AM
           Name: Lorraine Cottor
        Location: California,
                  I'm so happy I found your site. I'm always looking for intelligent, stimulating reading material. The calibre of the average
                 conservative these days is shameful, an embarassment to the country. As a liberal Atheist, I first searchedthe internet for
                 conservatives or Christians with whom I could engage in some lively debate, but soon found the other side unworthy of my time.
                 Today I often wonder how the country will survive if the majority continue to accept the amorality of government officials and the
                 deeds they commit against humanity, to indeed applaud them. Keep up the great work. I'll be visiting often. Lorraine

            Date:3/31/2002 - 5:02 PM
           Name:Jimmy the Good
        Location:Spingfield, Texas, USA
       Comments: King George is a king, and therefore he is appointed by God.. How dare you question the work of the most Holy one, God himself?
                 This site is nothing but blasphamy. You and your follows should don the sack-cloth and repent, for if you do not you and your
                 children will be cursed to the 1000th generation.

            Date: 3/28/2002 - 12:15 PM
           Name:Theo Lock
             Site: http://
        Location:Sydeville, NY,
       Comments:Gee, we don't DO research, so I don't know what you're talking about. And, yes, our site is partially predicated on the idea that as a
                 self-appointed King, George does unfortunately rule like one. So, gosh, what's your point again?

            Date:3/28/2002 - 9:59 AM
        Location:santa monica, california, usa
       Comments: i think you need to get a life...your last comments were way far fetched. your research is very biased and in no way legitimate. that
                 is your opinion-GEORGE RULES!

            Date: 3/27/2002 - 3:25 PM
           Name:Theodiclous Lock
        Location:Sydeville, New York, USA
       Comments:If your grammar and spelling is any indication of the quality of education associated with the use of corporal punishment, then
                 you're making a very good case for the abolishment of corporal punishment in public schools and private schools alike. Thank you
                 for your thoughts!

            Date:3/27/2002 - 10:24 AM
        Location: pittsburgh, pa, us
       Comments: i think that school spanking should be inforced in all schools.the kids are really out of hand a 3 day suspension does not
                 work. its more free time for them to rome the streets.and cause trouble. i whent to a private catholic school.and if you were bad you
                 got a paddel on your back side.and belive me those nuns knew how to do it ie no love taps.and i got my share of corporal
                 punishment.and all of the kids who i whent to school with all turned out to be outstanding the community. just a little food
                 for thought//

            Date: 3/26/2002 - 8:26 PM
           Name:Theodiclus Lock
        Location:Sydeville, NY,
       Comments: 10 days and counting...and not ONE Bush defender able to competently explain how Bush is not really a moron. (see Donald Reise's
                 challenge below...) Can it be done????

            Date:3/25/2002 - 2:08 PM
                  as an anti war activest i found your sight interesting and i have finally found the point at which to stop the debate and beat a hasty
                 retreat before the skelp on the gob comes for that you have my undyying gratitute, incidently you missed out asking if they had any
                 relatives in the military, im only telling you this cos my sons inside and i can counter this argument im sure youll catch a few of my
                 fellow travellers with it. anyway need to go back to my street corner for more abuse from the great british public comradly yours lin

            Date:3/25/2002 - 6:20 AM
           Name: Fitsum Negussie
        Location:Addis Ababa, Sowa, Ethiopia
                   Dear Sir/Madam I am a 23 year old male Ethiopian, recent college graduate who has been afflicted with Lymph edema of the left
                 lower limb for the past 13 years. I have tried to get help for my condition for the past 13 years, here in Ethiopia but have been told
                 that I cannot get much help for my condition here in Ethiopia. The medical board of the central specialized referral hospital, Tikur
                 Anbessa Hospital has decided I should seek help abroad. I come from poor family and I am currently unemployed. I found Hospital
                 who treat me In U.S.A ,Germany and Australia with the estimate cost of around $ 6,000 .I am humbly asking you to help me cover
                 my treatment cost in the name of God. I will send you my lower extrem

            Date: 3/22/2002 - 10:50 PM
           Name: Theodiclus Lock
        Location: Sydeville, NY,
       Comments: What a shame that our ONE TIME message of eternal salvation from God got cut off in midsentence. Too bad, guess we're all damned for
                 sure now... since we're all headed for hell, anyone want a beer?

            Date:3/22/2002 - 2:51 PM
                  Life on this earth is short and passing away quickly, and the decisions we make go beyond this temporary existence. Our eternal
                 existence and destiny depends on what we do with the contents of this message. This is a ONE TIME message which you maysave or
                 delete, as you will never hear from me again. Either way, I urge you to read and think over it carefully. Your personal response is
                 crucial. ....................................................................................................................... The Meaning of Easter This coming
                 Easter is the most important Christian holiday of the year. Easter celebrates the day Jesus Christ ROSE victoriously FROM THE
                 DEAD. The resurrection, as described in the Bible, me

            Date:3/20/2002 - 11:58 AM
           Name: Michael Krogh
        Location:Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
       Comments: Jesus taught this because the people of the day weren't giving to charity for the right reason. The people were giving to charity,
                 mainly the pharisees, so that they would look good in front of everyone else. People were giving to charity so that they would look
                 good. This is obviously prideful. One is to give to charity to help others, the underpriviliged, to help them, and to hopefully give
                 glory to God. Unfortunately, the people weren't doing this. They were doing it for their own pride, so that others would look up to
                 them. Bush, on the other hand, wants to give money to charities so that people could be helped. Now, maybe he has some secret
                 ambition that I don't see, but I see this as a guy who wants to help his country.

First and foremost, just because people claim Christianity, doesn't mean they are true christians. I don't think any educated person would consider Milosevick (Spelling?) a good Christian man. While the OT is a very good source of information, it is a covenant that is not in use anymore. The OT covenant was if you follow God, good will happen, if not, bad will happen. As harsh and calous as it sounds, that is how it was. As a consequence, the Jebusite, Amorites and the like were "detestable" in God's sight. Theycommitted child sacrifice, sexual immorality and so on. They were not followers of God. Therefore, by the covenant he made, he had them destroyed. Now a days it is different. The covenant isn&...

                  About public prayer, Jesus was talking about the Pharisees once again. They would pray in public so people could see how pious
                 they were and adore them. This is wrong, it was prideful. Jesus was preaching against that. He was saying, to them, that if they really
                 meant it, that THEY would pray in private. And, about the See you at the Pole, I've been there and we do it for Christian fellowship.
                 So that Christians can get together and pray for instituions we feel are lacking. I bet most of the readers here have never been to one
                 and have no idea what they are talking about or about they are reading.

            Date: 3/17/2002 - 4:22 PM
           Name:  John
        Location: Arvada, CO,
       Comments: Keep up the great work which is the truth. That moron needs to be exposed, my fear is that the majority of Americans are dumb enough to elect it again.

            Date:3/16/2002 - 1:16 PM
           Name:Donald Riese
       Comments:  George Bush is a stupid, stupid man. Part of the fun of this web site is that George has done so much of the work (of exposing
                 himself as a moron) himself: everyone *knows* he's an idiot! But wait--maybe that's not fair; maybe not everyone agrees he's a dolt.
                 I have to say, though, in all my arguments with people who support His Fraudulency, not one person has made a viable argument,
                 articulated in clear English, as to why it's *inaccurate* to say George is stupid. Not one. So I want to hear it. Where are the people
                 who think George W. Bush is *not* very, very dumb? Post your messages here. Convince me. Bring it on. You'll fail.

            Date:3/12/2002 - 7:10 AM
           Name: Theodiclus Lock
             Site: http://
        Location: Sydeville, NY,
       Comments: Well, that certainly was an interesting burst of bitter invective. Perhaps if you'd like to complete a sentence, or complete a thought (I
 won't be so bold as to ask for both), we might be able to "talk" as you suggest.

            Date:3/12/2002 - 1:56 AM
           Name: jimmy van dover
       Comments:Ateist are the devil

            Date:3/12/2002 - 1:55 AM
             Site:http:// tttt
        Location:ttt, tttt, ttt
       Comments: liberals are gay em kay

            Date:3/12/2002 - 1:47 AM
           Name: american
       Comments:    fuck you bob dont talk about my country that way

Date:  3/12/2002 - 1:45 AM
           Name: republican girl
           Email:  leave,me,alone,mrs,nosy@F,YOU.COM
             Site: http:// LIBERALSAREGAY.COM
       Comments: iam right up there with republican dan screw you all

            Date: 3/12/2002 - 1:17 AM
           Name: wouldnt you like too know
             Site: http://
        Location: dddd, dddd, ddddd
                   You are one messed up tree hugging animal actavist liberal uh, and thats not a complement.My kids actually learn alot from what
                 you so call evil. Gosh it's not like they are suffering , because we feed them and give them nectar and they have no chance of getting
                 eaten by a preditor. Then we let them go. How harmless is that? If you'd like to talk to me talk to me through your guest book . P.S.
                 Monks have no cocept,they just don't get it. Some monks believe in not getting married or reading the bible days on end

Return to Irregular Times.

Somewhere in the world, it's 10 O'Clock. Do you know where your pet marmoset is?

This page was written by two monks playing tennis. The font used on this page is Triplicate Muffin, a font designed for the specific use of this page.

Don't forget to check out our new message board!

All rights are very loud and quite obnoxious.