Adequacy front page
 
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Mommyism in the Workplace

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Aug 08, 2002
 Comments:
[editor's note, by Adam Rightmann]

Dear gentlereaders,

It is our blanket policy to immediately reject second hand submissions, but in this case, because this submission was quickly rejected by the secular humanists at whinging liberalists we chose to reconsider our policy. While most articles posted at whinging liberalists are about debating the greater pleasures of sodomizing male or female prepubescents, or what form of Godless communism will best destroy America, this one caught my eye. For I agree with Mr. ganglian, mothers should be staying at home with their children, and a mother who works with children under 10 is essentialy committing child abuse, or serious neglect at the best. So, without further ado, Mr. ganglian's article.

You can thank the earlier diary on the same subject for my inspiration. Let me get out my whuppin' stick....

sex

More stories about Sex
Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Solving Teen Pregnancy
Homosexuality - Is it the next evolutionary step for mankind ?
Open Letter to a Stripper
The Sinister Secret of our Schools
Don't look at me.
My husband wants to do my ass!
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
I'm a teenager, and I want it bad!
I have not had relations for months!
My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag
Should we circumcize our boy?
Active recruiting
My wife hungers for dark meat, and my nephew is a Commie!
Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode I
My husband wants me shorn!
Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode II
My inlaws are not fertile!
Taboo: The Downfall of America
The Time is Right for Manual Sex
Help save a baby, and snowballs
The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
It's all about the numbers
Caffeinated mints, and getting into the body you desire.
Why can't I get a second date?
The Heterosexual Geek's Guide to Feigning Homosexuality
I want a mistress!
Lesbian Parenting and the Myth of Gay Children
My roommate is gay! My roommate is a drunk.
I knew I was not the only one out there, and I would like to thank you for furthering the cause. You are to be commended. The whole notion of "Mommy Worship" in the workplace is a subject of debate long overdue.

How many non-breeders do you know that have been silent for too long? Too many! If you think that breeder is a harsh term, well let me tell you something. Fuck you and crusading Mommyist White Horse that you rode in on. The torment of of babies in the Corporate workplace and Mommy worship has a bane in the Workplace for the entirety of the Decade and a half that I have been in Corporate America, and I have seen repercussions put on the heads of those who have dared to speak out against it. So pardon my bitter ass if I don't pull my punches. Babies make me sick, Mommies make me sick, and the selfish, self centered little world of Mommy and Baby make me want to openly projectile vomit. Am I clear? Good! On with the Mommy bashing, or at least an honest effort to respond to the earlier diary point by point.

(Side note to the crybabies who will whine I should just post a comment, fuck you, this one is a pet peeve and I was the originator of the topic, if I want to further the debate, you will live. Get over it and get over yourself.) Now having quelled all whining, point by point response in the Anti Mommy Jihad....

The following are excerpts from the diary I was moved to write by. I shall now sink my teeth into the points that got to me the most.

"Now your baby will fight my monkey for legos. Poll: How much would you sell/purchase a healthy baby for? "

I wouldn't, I would offer them up as a food animal. I would forcibly regain any and all back pay given should the traitorous slut leave after maternity leave's descent into pure evil ended. Why some man would want anything to do with that loose flopping gash after she passed a baby through it I'll never know.

"Three recent things: 70% of the women in my company who have left on maternity leave have resigned immediately when it was over, and in fact never return to work. Those who remain are now squawking to our HR department for childcare subsidies or an on site day care. When they build that day care, I am going to get a monkey and demand they take care of it for me every day"

I will have them watch the watermelon I will buy from the Grocery Store. I will have them watch my favorite cucumber.

." If you can't afford to have a baby, then don't. If you are going to quit your job to raise a baby, then quit; don't squeeze the company for an extra six weeks of pay then quit. "

Amen Brother. I should count my blessings that I won't have to look at those milk swollen udder cows with huge flabby hips, and a double blessing that my girlfriend of eight years will never have a baby, and delightful tiny AA tits and a boyishly slim ass.

[ed] I too agree, the only right thinking thing to do is to increase the pay of fathers so that the mothers can stay home and raise the children in a proper, God fearing way. Of course, single folks may have to pitch in a little, financially, but it's for the best.

"And please, stop bringing your fucking babies to work to show everyone else."

Amen twice

" They stink and make too much noise. At a local bar where I like to meet my friends, there was a couple with their baby. They sat there, smoked, drank a bunch of beer, changed their baby at the table, and generally just let the goddamn mini-Winston Churchill look-alike cry the whole time."

This is about where I scream about the evils of bad parenting and where the blatant hypocrisy of the Breeder cult rings the truest. Our baby is our purest joy, yet we lovingly give it a slow nicotine ridden death at the local pub. You breeders scum make me sick. Get your brat back to the trailer park and raise it to be a backward slackjaw like daddy. The shebitch was probably waving her swollen udders around the feed the little cretin, too. Don't get me started in breastfeeding, it's gross!

"By the amount of beer bottles left on their table as a guide, they then proceeded to drive home drunk in their Jeep Grand Cherokee. In the new America, it should be legal for me to kill them. "

Solient (sic, ed) Green, buddy, all three of them, or at least a quality pig fodder. Maybe I can at least take the squalid, screaming baby and sacrifice it on a Wiccan altar.

[ed] True, those Wiccans love to sacrifice Christian babies, though they usually sacrifice young woman who have been hoodwinked by marijuana using Satanists.

"Some news magazine recently did an hour long episode on stress levels, and they compared a Fortune 500 CEO, someone trying to start their own small business, and a "full time mommy."

Here I raise an issue of my own: Mommying is NOT a job, it is not a career, nor is it a profession. What it is, is a choice in life that you make or don't make. It is a choice to live in the shadow of the demands and whims of a four-limbed raisin that will leach anything and everything out of you that it can until it is 18 and hopefully moves out. It is time to stop trying to project the delusion onto the rest of us, the normals, that having a brat is some kind of Sainthood or in some of the more backward circles of life, the only path in life.

[ed] Mr. ganglian is a little off here, for what could any right thinking woman hope for but to emulate the life of the Virgin Mary?

Breederism is but one of many choices you make in life, and I cannot emphasize enough how many true ignorami (The plural of ignoramus) out there should not have made that choice. Stop trying to push the rest of us into thinking life is ideal in the dark alley that is parenting. Some of us don't want it and are sick and tired of you breeder scum stinking up the workplace with your bastard kid's stinky diapers.

Think I like your kid, a pox on you!!!!!!

"Oddly enough the two people who worked for a fucking living had high levels of stress, and the mother did not. How was this spun by the reporters? The mother must have some great coping skills to deal with not one but two children. It's another fucking miracle. Of course, they ignored the fact that being a "full time stay at home mommy" is just not that fucking stressful."

And why should it be stressful if little raisin boy is the joy of your life? Departing for a moment from the workplace and moving into conventional social circles, I will slap you here to! Stay at home mommies I have been cursed to know have a little racket they try to pull at home to, Hypo missed this one. It is the inevitable path of trying to pass off your brat to anyone who will watch them for a few minutes "because Mommy (Breeder slut) needs a break". Suddenly all the breeder's friends become potential baby sitters. If you love the raisin menace so much, why do you spend so much time trying to get a break from the little mutant? HUH?!!! It's bad enough your new babysitter corps has to have the little turd factory included in any and all social dealing with the Breeders. My advice, boycott, let them die of their own sense of inconvience. You know that little yard ape was an accident anyway. Tell him/her/it that they were later in their lives, they will love you for it, really. Why the hell would you want anything to do with something that has so much to do with a vagina.

" In case you were wondering, your baby smells. It makes too much noise. It's very annoying. I do not want to hold it, look at it, or tell you how wonderful it is."

But will make it into a damn nice omelet for ya. Get the stinky little bastard away from me before I tear the head off it's little binky (Favorite stuffed whatever) and make it cry. Why? Because I can. Making an infant (Womb Parasite) cry is in no way illegal, not even a misdemeanor. (Mispelled to irritate breeders reading this. You know who you are)

"By the way, the fact that you managed to get knocked up and produce another mouth for me to feed, educate, care for, and eventually get shot by is not a miracle of Jesus; it's a tragic fucking mistake. You had a baby? Congratulations, you're a mammal! End Baby/Mommy/Daddy Worship in the 2k2. Peace. "

No Hypo! No peace, no tolerance for the nonbreeders, no peace! And now for the torrent of inevitable whining from the mommy responders, here we go! Whee...............!

Response number One:

"But no stress in raising children full time? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Sure, there's no much stress if you are just "watching" them. But raising them is very stressful. Discipline, safety, food, clothing, equipment, entertainment (which includes but is not limited to, books, toys, games, TV, etc). All of these things take time, money, thought and effort. To do the job well they take a LOT of some of these resources. That's stressful But that doesn't mean the job is easy. "

"...very few of which are intellectually challenging..."

I don't care if it's stressful, why must you force your breederism on everything in your path. We the normals don't care to deal with it. Like hypo said, me no want to hold, feed, change, acknowledge the urchin you and the mailman sired. I don't care! You need to lose the notion that parenting is a job. It is a choice, and for many backward thinking rednecks out there, it is a bad one. They should be making every stinking effort they can to avoid adding to the gene pool. Killing stupid people before they can breed should be allowed!

Response number two:

"I guess you've never had an inquisitive preschooler around asking "why" and pointing out inconsistencies."

No I haven't, and I don't care how hard you think that it is. The bottom line in having that parasite is that you made a choice to put up with all this alleged hardship. The rest of us don't care and you aint gettin any sense of sainthood for procreating and following the same stupid directive that every other species on Earth follows. You've proven you're doing your part in the food chain, whoopety fuckingdoo! Where the fuck is the comet to eradicate all life on earth, when will we live in a Matrix!

"Even when the questions are easy the answers can be hard--trying to put it in terms the child will understand, trying think of examples the child has encountered, thinking up variations on same when asked again. Then do this continually for literally hours on end."

You didn't hear me say we don't care, did you. Defend yourself to your own kind; they're the only ones buying it.

My peeves with the Workplace Mommies and with being a single person in the modern day having to know too many parental types summed up:

Your kids have no place in the workplace, not now, not ever, period. You have no right to collect for little Johnny's candy drive at work, I hate career day. You have no right to use your brat as a shield to pulling your weight in the workplace. If doing both is too much for you, choose one, quit the other. Yes it is that simple.

I don't want to hear about your brat's first word, or anything else, ad nausea, while at work, I work with you, I don't care about your home life, or actually anything about you. Do your job and leave me alone. Parenting is not a job, it is a life choice, and it doesn't elevate you to sainthood and put you first in realm of consideration above other people.

I don't care to you whine about how you have no time for yourself either, it's a life choice as in, you made a choice. Live with it and stop trying to burden the rest of us with you. The next time your kid gets cancer, too fucking bad, let him die alone in the hospital, I'm not taking your shift!

You are Mommies, you suck and need to stay the hell out of the workplace with your brats. Suck it up!

       
Tweet

Without moms... (none / 0) (#7)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:20:30 AM PST
...we'd be extinct in one generation.


Sir, ganglian's thesis is not against mothers (none / 0) (#9)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:26:39 AM PST
it's against mothers who abandon their children to work outside the house. As the editor, I had to agree.

I think any right thinking person would agree that much of the chaos and spiritual bankruptcy of America lately has been caused by mothers leaving their children to work outside their house, the subsequent devaluation of motherhood as a saintly occupation, and the lack of ethics in children raised by uncaring state sponsored daycares.


A. Rightmann

Sir Rightmann, (none / 0) (#30)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 10:02:35 PM PST
You are correct - our nations Family Values are getting corrupted by those who refuse to have offspring. As you know - it is sinful not to have children. The Lord wishes all of us to have children. Todays hippie minded youth - would rather have many hours in the workplace then many of the lords children.

The generation of our offspring will face two choices to deal with this pressing issue - either outlaw women in the workplace so they may care for their children at home, or allow all women to bring their children into the workplace to play along side their mother.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

I'm not in favor of outlawing women in the workpla (none / 0) (#34)
by Adam Rightmann on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 10:16:18 AM PST
ce, for they can perform needed functions, and even meet future husbands. But once they have kids, really the best thing for them, their kids and society is that they stay home, at least until the kids are in school, at which point they can work a few hours during the day, provided of course that the laundry, shopping and chores are done, the house is cleaned up, and dinner will be ready at 6.

I certainly can't imagine them taking children to work, properly rearing children takes a lot of time and effort, and they're work quality would be very poor.


A. Rightmann

What kind of job do you do? (none / 0) (#36)
by because it isnt on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 10:35:16 AM PST
I only ask, because you mention 6PM as dinner-time. Most high-powered executive types that I know arrive home at 8PM or 9PM. It is only the regular office worker who has left at 5.30PM on the dot and has planned to live in a place that allows half-hour commutes, unlike the executive who has to negotiate twisty country roads and a final 10 minute drive down his driveway. Even the average retail employee can't leave until 8PM due to all-route late opening hours in today's society.

The common labourer, while being extremely useful in building tomorrow's America, is even quicker off the marks when the work-bell sounds at 4.30.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

I'm a normal computer professional (none / 0) (#44)
by Adam Rightmann on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 05:06:32 PM PST
working 8-5 every day, with a 20 minute commute, because I've chosen to live in the city and work in the suburbs.

I've purposely chosen a meeker career path than management because I've seen what stress long, executive type hours can impose upon a family. I decided the best thing I can do for the world is to be a large force in my children's upbringing, so that they can become right thinking, God fearing, capable adults. This would be hard to do if I only saw them for a few minutes each night.


A. Rightmann

 
A common misapprehension. (none / 0) (#45)
by RobotSlave on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 05:08:27 PM PST
The people that you, the common labourer, think of as "high-powered executive types" are little more than puppets, installed by the true power-brokers to perpetuate an illusion of engagement and keep the yoke of fear firmly about the proletariat's neck.

The real mogul rarely goes anywhere near the steel and glass prisons that he owns and profits so handsomely from. His office is a well-appointed wood-panelled affair in the villaige centre, staffed by a few capable, trustworthy, and comely assistants.

The day begins at 10, with a careful perusal of the privately supplied world news feed, followed by some light correspondence. The real work of the day then begins: a long, fearfully expensive lunch with key associates, followed by several hours of negotiations on the links. A brief stop back in the office is made shortly before five, to instruct the staff in any new busines, after which a short chauffered ride ends at the front door of the main house on the estate, at about a quarter past.

Half an hour is spent with the horses and hounds, after which our mogul freshens up, changes for dinner, and arrives in the dining room at six. The wife, after her day of tending to the children and overseeing the staff, is already seated at the table, and the domestics are on their way from the kitchen, the first course in hand.

Meanwhile, the wayward nephew, oblivious to the punitive nature of his sinecure, sits in a rumpled suit atop the glass tower, shouting fearfully through a telephone at a cowering bean-counter.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Attn 'Slave: You are not Bob Abooey. (none / 0) (#46)
by because it isnt on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 05:48:11 PM PST
Nor are you any of his delinquent associates. Please stop apeing him.

Now on to your main theory. It is poppycock. The high powered executive is no illusion. There are two paths to becoming obscenely rich. The first path is that of diligence, hard work, and entrepreneurial spirit. The second path is to become an accident of birth.

In Britain, we have an aristocracy, and associated upper-class twits. These people assume titles and capitalise on their land reserves, family investments, etc. They call themselves Lords and Barons, but they have no real power outside their personal fiefdoms.

As your precious United America rejected the King's hand, you find yourselves with a republican aristocracy. This is the Old Boy's Network, the Ivy league barbershop quartets, the Grand Old Party, CFOs of corrupt corporations, jumping from more wobbly boards than an Olympic diver. They are no different from our twits, except they don't go round Buck P on Tuesdays for tea with Liz. They siphon off pension fund surpluses and do extravagant lunches, but ultimately they control and do very little. That is done by real businessmen. Men who live and breathe business. These are the people I refer to in my original comment, and these are the people who are the real Kings of the business world.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Horatio Alger! (none / 0) (#64)
by RobotSlave on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 08:19:32 AM PST
I thought you were dead!

Keep that bourgeois fantasy firmly in place, Mr Isn't. People are depending on it.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
And what are you on about, anyway? (none / 0) (#74)
by RobotSlave on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 04:13:20 PM PST
I didn't say a thing about aristocracy.

In the country that controls the world, that is to say, in America, a self-respectinhg mogul wouldn't be caught dead with one of your foppish "titles," just as he wouldn't chain himself to a desk in a tower of steel and glass.

As an aside, I must say the British propaganda you've been exposed to seems to be remarkably effective. Sheer genius of them to make power seem inconceivable outside of birthright or backbreaking labor. How do they do that, I wonder?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Right as usual, 'Slavey! (none / 0) (#76)
by because it isnt on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 02:49:40 PM PST
Backstory: I posited that the ennobled lack true power. 'Slave disagreed (see immediately above parent comment). In another thread, 'Slave insisted that knighthoods confer no real power, a reversal his previous opinion. I pointed this out, and 'Slave deleted the thread to make himself look better.
I didn't say a thing about aristocracy.
Nobody is saying that you did. You live in a republic. You wouldn't know an aristocracy if it invited you to a garden party. I was offering the readers a comparison. I even came up with a snappy oxymoron to describe your lot.

Sadly, America only acts like it rules the world. If it actually ruled the world, its airline and financial industries wouldn't be in such a mess.
a self-respectinhg mogul wouldn't be caught dead with one of your foppish "titles,"
When Conrad Black, American newspaper mogul was offered an ennoblement from our Brenda, did he choose Republicanism, or the Lording? That was a rhetorical question.

You clearly haven't seen much British politics if you think you can obtain power without effort. Perhaps you mistake physical effort and political effort. Apart from oddballs like Pitt, Tony Blair is the "youngest" Prime Minster ever, becoming PM at "only" 44 years of age, after roughly 26 years in politics. To achieve power in Britain is a long, arduous, backbiting task. Young Johnny-come-latelys like William Hague and Iain Duncan Cough just get shat upon by their superiors. This is unlike American politics, where your position in government depends on how many unethical corporations are bribing you not to legislate them out of business.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Poor fool. (none / 0) (#77)
by RobotSlave on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 06:18:17 PM PST
See? See how they've got you completely obsessed with royalty? That's brilliant propaganda work.

You're so brainwashed that you can't read an account of a powerful man's day without assuming he's "ennobled."

Where did I say knighthood confers real power, Mr. Isnt? Go ahead and quote the passage, if you like.

Conrad Black, clearly, had no self-respect. This condition, unsurprisingly, is quite common in the typical officebound figurehead CEO.

I like your obsessive fanboy description of British politics. The figureheads in Parliament do have a modicum of power, true, but it should be clear that with all the political maneuvering, they, like all public servants, have no time for the careful orchestration of world events. Official governments have their functions, yes, but their members should be viewed as just that: functionaries.

Incidentally, your comment was not deleted to make anyone look better or worse. Your comment was deleted because you are a known supporter of script-kiddism, and as such, automatically barred from commenting in that diary entry.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

RobotSlave in gonorrhea shock. (none / 0) (#78)
by because it isnt on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 02:25:25 PM PST
Your lack of grounding in British tradition is showing. I wouldn't call it "propaganda". Propaganda, to my mind, is more like venture capitalists hyping doomed technology companies to swindle investors out of their money -- investors brought up to believe the nonsense of Capitalism, that the "free market" and its "free hand" shall provide liberty for all. Adam Smith would turn in his grave if he could hear the shambles of the dot-com bubble being described as 'capitalism'.

Conrad Black, clearly, had no self-respect.

Today's meta topic, children: RobotSlave. A typical RobotSlave discussion goes something like this:

RobotSlave: blah blah something blatantly untrue and that's why I'm right!
Protagonist: You are clearly incorrect. Here are SOME ACTUAL FACTS which show your grievous error.
RobotSlave: Ah ha! I included some weasel-words in my previous statement, so instead of stating incorrect things, I am in fact stating nothing at all. Therefore, I win.
Protagonist: yuo = teh dum

I know no more than the average BBC viewer about my country's political scene. If you think I'm a political 'fanboy', you should have seen William Hague. When he was 16, he kept copies of Hansard under his bed. Of course, it is the view of stereotypical American that politics do not affect them, because it should be corporations running the country rather than elected officials.

Incidentally, your comment was not deleted to make anyone look better or worse. Your comment was deleted because you are a known supporter of script-kiddism, and as such, automatically barred from commenting in that diary entry.

You haven't actually written that in your diary. Go back and silently insert "and their known supporters" to stem another well of your own idiocy. Meanwhile, I'm going on holiday. Again.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

You poor dear. (none / 0) (#79)
by RobotSlave on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 06:07:54 PM PST
A critical element of all propaganda, of course, is that those who are subjected to it should not understand it as such. This is of course true of the American propaganda that you keep bleating on about, but it is equally true of the British propaganda that has you so firmly in its grip.

Now then. It seems you've suffered some sort of apoplectic fit upon realizing your most significant error.

I didn't say anything about the supposed power of the nobility, did I? And that is upsetting, isn't it?

It must be very irritating, indeed, for you to get so hopelessly enraged over the "weasle words" that you ignored in your haste to present your irrelevant "ACTUAL FACTS."

Live by pedantry, die by pedantry, Mr Isnt.




© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

RobotSlave sucks dogs cocks in Hell. (none / 0) (#80)
by because it isnt on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 12:23:51 AM PST
A critical element of all propaganda, of course, is that those who are subjected to it should not understand it as such. This is of course true of the American propaganda that you keep bleating on about, but it is equally true of the British propaganda that has you so firmly in its grip.

It's only propaganda if corporations are spreading it. If the government is spreading it, it's called "culture". HTH.

I didn't say anything about the supposed power of the nobility, did I? And that is upsetting, isn't it?

To your first question: this is a repeat. While it is a question that is central to your confusion, I have already answered it.

To your second question: No. You are still firmly shot down. To pretend you weren't really saying what was refuted is simply being a bad loser. I win.

Live by pedantry, die by pedantry, Mr Isnt.

"Mr Isn't", you fool. Tch. You can't get the staff these days.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

How's the holiday going? (none / 0) (#81)
by RobotSlave on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 12:52:09 AM PST
If I lose, does this mean I can make up contradictions in your comments for myself when there aren't any, and then claim I win because I imagined them?

Good day, Mr. "isnt."


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

No, (none / 0) (#83)
by because it isnt on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 03:25:05 PM PST
it means you can go back and use your janitorial super-powers to strike out contradictions from your old comments. Not so much "1984" as "big idiot is watching you".

Holiday's finished, by the way. It was only a quick one.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
ey, that's an easy one! (none / 0) (#38)
by Juan Fernandez on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 11:08:48 AM PST
"...The generation of our offspring will face two choices to deal with this pressing issue - either outlaw women in the workplace so they may care for their children at home, or allow all women to bring their children into the workplace to play along side their mother..."
Well Doctor (excuse me, I've been calling you "Mister" for some time now) it is obvious that if women stay at home with children we can not beat them during working hours, so the second choice is a must. Relieving husbands' stress is one of the dutys Good Wise Lord gave to spouses. Children can take advantage and learn this important lesson in an early stage of their educational process.


Note on forms of address (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by RobotSlave on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 04:36:01 PM PST
In high-class circles, which you obviously have little to no experience with, Mr. Fernandez, Sir, the polite form of address is "title name, Sir." If one does not wish to use a proper name in the address, "Sir" will suffice. Yes, this does mean that a Knight of the Realm should be addressed in a seemingly redundant fashion, as in "Sir Olivier, Sir, I thought you were dead!" I have heard that this formulation sometimes sounds awkward to those without American military training.

One very important exception to this rule occurs when addressing heads of state, as protocol will often explicitly require a specific form of address for the head of a specific nation-- e.g., one must refer to George Washburn Bush, the current President of the United States of America, as "Mister President," no matter how silly it sounds.

Incidentally, my title is "Editor." Thus, in high-class situations, you may address me as "Editor RobotSlave, Sir."


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Or (none / 0) (#47)
by First Incision on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 08:53:08 PM PST
Editor RobotSlave, Sir, I have a request. That title is very long, and I cannot afford nude typists. May I abbreviate your title to "Ed?"
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

A difficult question. (none / 0) (#63)
by RobotSlave on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 07:53:19 AM PST
While such abbreviations are acceptable in certain forms of brief communication, a better impression is always made with the full title.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Thank you very much, Mister! (none / 0) (#60)
by Juan Fernandez on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 04:23:22 PM PST
Thanks, Mister RobotSlave, I always appreciate any piece of information which could be used to improve my social skills, specially in high-class circles, from now on I'll pay special attention to your posts and comments so my education could keep growing everyday, well-fed with these pearls of knowledge you spread all across this God Blessed site.


 
Yeah, so? (none / 0) (#10)
by gzt on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 09:30:08 AM PST
Exactly. What's wrong with that?


Our Death... Our Life... (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 08:41:15 AM PST
If you worship death but not life, how can you have true purpose? If you worship life but not death, how can you have true purpose? If you worship both, you can have true purpose.


What the hell? (none / 0) (#26)
by gzt on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 02:48:39 PM PST
True purpose? Worship?

Look, mate: I never said anything about death, life, or "true" purpose.

Take your pseudo-mysticist blither and snort it.

The question I am attempting to ask in this thread is, "Should we care if this is the last generation?"


Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 09:57:48 PM PST
Yes we should care. It is a great sin not to procreate.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
If you don't like your workplace... (none / 0) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:23:43 AM PST
...QUIT!!!


Don't Quit. (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 10:27:28 AM PST
Don't run away from the problem. Work vigorously to change it to be the way you think it should be.

Get rid of those kids. They don't belong at work. If you don't have the decency to quit, or leave them with their grandmother, you're not wanted here anyway.



 
Was that a joke? (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 01:03:03 PM PST
Cause I was laughing my ass all the way through it! Sheesh why can't most people just stop having kids I hate them the god damn world has to many humans any ways. Chris rock says it best... STOP FUCKING! Put the dick down, get a job, get a job holding dicks whatever you do just stop fucking! I am tired of all these fucking hicks having like 7 children we don't need 7 more klans men and women. Or poor people period having children. A think people should only be allow two children max and atlest 5 years between the two!


Sounds like a Communist plan to me (none / 0) (#15)
by dmg on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 06:19:29 PM PST
Your plan to restrict the number of offspring free Americans choose to have is remeniscent of the one-child law currently in effect in China.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Err well (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 10:09:00 AM PST
Do want to living on top of over people, no trees, no forest, no air, no space, cause people can't stop having children. Its fucked up peer pressure the convinces people to have a child, maybe greedy grand parents and poor people should stop presuring people to have children, I rather live in a world where its sorta like china, to have enough food, space, and air to live. Again either kill alot of people or slow down the birth rate.


You *are* a communist (none / 0) (#28)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 09:55:55 PM PST
The Lord gave us these trees, these animals, and these women FOR OUR USE! It would be shame not to use up the forests - a gift given by Our Lord. It would be a shame not to harvet cattle, or buffalo, or whales. The Lord has given these to us for us to consume. It would be sinful not to use them.

If they lord did not want us to procreate - he would not have created the penis and the vagina. Clearly we are reproductive beings, and we do The Lords work by having as many children to share our Lords bountiful forests, animals and water.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Your a joke! (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:07:04 PM PST
I've study you, you have been measure, and you are found to be a hoax. Its funny your making fun of coprate people and these idiots think your a real CEO. Are you a comic or just a realy funny artist?


Sir, (none / 0) (#67)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 04:23:54 PM PST
I am as real of a CEO as John W Sidgmore is the (perhaps soon to be former) CEO of Worldcom. Perhaps you should take the time you have spent questioning my integrity, and learn some simple spelling and grammar. I suggest you go elseware where they do not care about spelling, grammar, or intelligence.

Good day to you Anonymous Reader


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

ok if your A real CEO (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 11:24:05 PM PST
Give me a address to your wonderful company, maybe some info too... since my fake money wants to invest in your fake company. You say your a Ceo witha phd and yet no proof. Really prove to me your a CEO and I will I start using linux.


Sir (none / 0) (#72)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Wed Aug 14th, 2002 at 07:12:39 PM PST
Have you visited our website? I will have you know that this website was fought tooth and nail by many of our bankers, brokers, and fund managers. It was only after the board of directors realised that we needed a "web presence" that our website came to fruition.

Our customers know us, we do not advertise with such sillyness as "addresses" or phone numbers. Granted we do have such things, we just prefer not to release that information to the general public. If you need our professional services, you already know us, and know how to get ahold of us. By not disclosing our companies information, it allows us to weed out people such as yourself.

We are a privatly held corporation. We do not sell stock to the public, and we certainly would screen the likes of you out of our pool of investors and shareholders. We only accept people who can actually afford things like cars, houses, private jets and yachts.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

You know... (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 15th, 2002 at 09:36:53 AM PST
Wow good recovery... but still with out that information there is no proof of your exsitance, no proof that martino cortez is a real name. No real proof that you real own a company. So your either a funnist impressionist, a fake, a artist trying to make a statment or a person who is suffering from some type of mental illness that makes him think hes a ceo.


 
So, you're in favor of baby killing? (none / 0) (#35)
by Adam Rightmann on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 10:23:48 AM PST
of just murder in general? You should be a great hit at your local Wiccan coven.


A. Rightmann

They kicked me out. (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:10:16 PM PST
Well it started out has a joke but when the fucken wicca whore threw the stick at me, I pushed her and her shallow lesbian lover into the fire. After that they said I wasn't welcomed no more. Who cares really I consider them now fucken Gundalf wanna be's, who enjoy satan worship... wait thats your opinion!


 
What's wrong with our species? (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 05:53:29 PM PST
It concerns me when I find myself agreeing with an article on adequacy.

But I sort of know what I think: I do not believe children should be the responsibility of solely two individuals, but of the whole of society.

And I believe the male pill should be made available ASAP.


Wider responsibility (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 06:13:38 PM PST
I believe you can encourage this through greater female promiscuity. Many primitive tribes use this technique to ensure that a child's paternity is never certain, so that every child has many fathers, rather than just one. Have you considered writing to your congressman on this subject?


Furthermore, (none / 0) (#16)
by jvance on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:50:10 PM PST
if your congresscritter is Hillary Clinton, why she wrote a book on this very subject!
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Responsibility of those having sex (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 11:06:57 PM PST
I think that children should be the responsibility of those who chose to have them. If you don't chose to have them, why should they be your responsibility ?

And yeah, the male pill should be available real quick. I'd love my girlfriend to go on the pill, but she wants babies way more than me, and I don't trust her to not "forget" to take it.


You sicken and confuse me (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by First Incision on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:19:34 AM PST
Every once and awhile, someone likes you reminds me why I am celibate. You have a 'girlfriend' and you are considering sexual intercourse. Yet there is no trust. You do not trust her enough to be honest about her desire for children. You do not trust her enough to remember to take a pill daily.

It seems to me that you should not have sex with this woman.

By the way, the most promising advances in male hormonal contraception involve implants under the skin, injections or combinations of both. Widespread availability of these methods are many years away.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

That sounds awfully painful (none / 0) (#39)
by Juan Fernandez on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 11:27:55 AM PST
"...the most promising advances in male hormonal contraception involve implants under the skin, injections or combinations of both..."
No way I'm letting any myopic ancient nurse to do such kind of things on my penis, not now nor in any near future. I really do admire those of you brave enough to be willing to use such dangerous techniques. Anyway is the slut who is going to get pregnant, not you, so why bother?


Not in the penis (none / 0) (#40)
by First Incision on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 01:44:17 PM PST
The implants would not be in the penis. They would be similar to Norplant. Norplants are usually placed under the skin of the arm. The point is to allow a very slow release of hormones to achieve a long term effect.

A male pill is very challenging to develop because there is no monthly cycle. A woman is only capable of conception a few days a month, whereas a man is a ticking timebomb of potent sperm.

Again, you sicken and confuse me. The woman gets pregnant, yes, but raising the child is also your moral responsibility.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Soylent Green? (none / 0) (#18)
by gordonjcp on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 02:53:51 AM PST
Solient (sic, ed) Green, buddy, all three of them, or at least a quality pig fodder.

Ick! All that nicotine and other tobacco chemicals. All the crap you pump into animals and vegetables in the US. And all that stale American beer...

There is no damn way I'd ever eat an average American. A free-range, corn-fed one, perhaps, but probably not even then.


 
Don't miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Juan Fernandez on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 05:09:13 AM PST
I fully agree with the post. Beyond that I would add the big problem here is almost to pass through unnoticed: women are not the same that men. We Spaniards (and fellow Italians as well) know this very well and have been keeping a proper control over both home and working enviroments for generations, even today. But you USA nationals have been fooled onto thinking that men and women are the same and should have granted identical rights, mostly because consumerism and industrial interests. Just think that women who go to work out home need a car, petrol, pocket money, good clothes (not that crap they wear at home when they think nobody see them), etc.
Wake up, you morons: there won't be real equality until the day ten women could stand naked around a cup on the floor and urinate inside the cup all ten at the same time.


Put it simply Your a Asshole (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 10:15:24 AM PST
Realy I fail to see why women need to oppressed maybe cause you are afraid. Change, your scared, your scared you will never get a wife cause they no you just want to control them. Your probaly one of them fuckers who beat their wives, yeah your a big man picking on a defenesless human being. Why not be a man, drop your gun, stop playing with your self, and fight some one bigger then you for a change, asshole.


Of course I do (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Juan Fernandez on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 11:55:44 AM PST
"...Your probaly one of them fuckers who beat their wives..."


Indeed I beat my fat ass wife... not only it helps her to keep her hysteria in a reasonable level but also homework is done quicker and food is on the table at time.
I also beat the bitch I fuck with in the office. The poor soul happens to love strong and dominant hairy chested machos like me. Another reason to do it is because it helps her to forget about that stupid idea of myself leaving my wife and marrying her.


 
Take your liberalism elseware you fool, (none / 0) (#27)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 09:52:06 PM PST
When my typists get out of line - often there is little choice but to beat them. When my wife does something I dislike - I beat her. "Domestic Violence" is but a liberal myth. For you see, according to our Lord, women, like animals, are put here on this Earth to satisfy men. Women, like animals, may show feelings, signs of intelligence, or otherwise, but a wise man is not so easily sold it. This is merely what women are programmed for. Women are unconcious, a system of nerves, and are merely reacting to stimuli. Men are spiritual beings, they have souls, and when they leave this material world - they will live forever in heaven.

Therefore, it OK to beat women of all kinds - they are not blessed by the Lord and have no soul. I beat my wife, my typists, my female employees and my female children. There is nothing wrong with this. Please take your foolish heathenistic ways someplace else.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

I would if I could (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:19:07 PM PST
I rather go some place else, but I am stuck here, so were going to have to draw a line across the world I stay on the left you on the right that way we both don't kill each other.


 
A question for the gun-haters (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 03:52:57 PM PST
According to orthodox liberals, the gun is a symbol for the penis. This is a statement that you will hear from almost any liberal, regardless of their opinion or understanding of psychoanalysis. We must therefore assume that, in the minds of liberals, guns are penises.

Now, all liberals appear to hate and fear guns. If guns are penises, does it not follow, then, that liberals are terrified of penises? Or consumed with hatred for the male sex organs? What does this indicate about liberalism and its origins?


ERR the reason I hate guns... (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:17:11 PM PST
First...Well anyone can pull a triger, a five year old can kill with a gun. Second I takes out the skill of hunting, third off its used by gang members. I wish wars where still won with the heart and strength of their soldiers. Guns I think ruined man as we know it, you kill with a melee weapon your their you are staring at the person you killed that blood stains you, your weapon, and your cloths.


The history of warfare (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 01:28:39 AM PST
In battles fought with the more honorable weapons you are demanding, most deaths and injuries were sustained in the backs of the retreating army. But yeah, guns have taken the cruelty and gore out of fighting. They should just stop issuing bullets and fight all the wars with bayonet charges.


 
No (none / 0) (#54)
by Right Hand Man on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 06:26:28 AM PST
I agree with you that a 5 year old can defend himself with a gun if necessary, yet another notch in the belt firearms. Your statement that guns take the skill out of hunting (as best I can decipher) indicates that you do not hunt. I find it odd that non hunters think that anyone who walks into the woods will be beset with game, and that merely firing a weapon with one's eyes closed is sufficient to bring meat to the table. This is nearly as ridiculous as your kind's claim that many people hunt with machine guns.

Further, wars are still fought with the heart and strength of soldiers. Visit downtown Kosovo if you doubt that.

Next, shoot someone from a distance of approximately 6 inches. You'll find that your clothes are less than clean.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Guns are nice... (none / 0) (#55)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 06:56:48 AM PST
...but high-altitude bombing is more favourite attack method of contemporary war "heroes".


This is necessary (none / 0) (#56)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 01:29:02 PM PST
America may have the largest army in the world, but we also have the army that is least eager to see its soldiers die. The political ramifications of even a few wartime deaths are unusually high in my country. This is because democracy inspires people to want to live. Unfortunately, we must defend democracy in nations which inspire people to want to die. This poses a problem. The best solution is to keep our boys out of danger as much as possible. The US army operates like the wrath of God. If your third-world hubris brings you to our attention, you can be sure we'll make you pay many times over for anything you do to us. High altitude bombing is an ideal way to accomplish this. The alternatives are far too ugly.


Well... (none / 0) (#57)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 02:07:06 PM PST
The political ramifications of even a few wartime deaths are unusually high in my country.

...So it took Pentagon 20 years to admit toxic effects of Agent Orange to American soldiers. And who knows how long time it will take to admit the effects of DU ammo.

This is because democracy inspires people to want to live.

...Hence the increasing numbers of suicides in "civilized" countries?

If your third-world hubris brings you to our attention...

Or the natural resources...

The alternatives are far too ugly.

The alternatives look more ugly because it looks less ugly from the high altitude.

Good old times when kings were leading their armies to battles themselves, risking their own necks. Today? The presidents and generals are cowardly hiding in their underground bunkers, and then claiming what heroes they are.


Eisenhower. (none / 0) (#61)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 02:03:49 AM PST
Dwight D. Eisenhower. George Bush Snr. Gerald R. Ford. Richard Milhous Nixon. Lyndon B. Johnson. John F. Kennedy. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. Harry S. Truman. Herbert Hoover. Theodore Roosevelt.

The real tragedy is that America has known so peace so rarely and so briefly throughout its history that we have seldom been able to elect presidents who have not fought in wars.


Isn't it because... (none / 0) (#62)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 06:55:18 AM PST
...war is the American way of life?

War is peace, isn't it?


Don't you live in a country... (none / 0) (#68)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 04:43:51 PM PST
...that owes its freedom to America winning the cold war?


America defines 'freedom' (none / 0) (#69)
by because it isnt on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 11:22:33 PM PST
as 'being like America'. Russia most probably defined freedom as 'being like Russia'. Either way, the history books are always written by whoever wins. Have a look at this chap's page for a little personal view.

Ironically, the Czech Republic is now more Free than the Land Of The Free, because they like to ignore America's protectionism schemes designed to safeguard American megacorps (i.e. patent and copyright laws).
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Confidential to Mr Isn't (none / 0) (#71)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 11:44:50 PM PST
1. You are not The Mad Scientist.

2. Any fool could see that the communists were tyrants. Haven't you read The GULAG Archipelago? The stories of the purges? Did we in America ever control the movement of our people within our borders? You can't seriously be comparing the Russian slave state to the greatest democracy on Earth.

3. It seems the new "eXtreme Freedom" of the balkan states includes the freedom to behave like parasites. I'm sure corrective action will be taken by America before long.


I read it... (none / 0) (#75)
by walwyn on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 01:01:26 PM PST
...and three weeks later joined the CPUK.


 
Indeed. (none / 0) (#58)
by because it isnt on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 02:37:00 PM PST
we also have the army that is least eager to see its soldiers die

Quite. It prefers to kill off British and Canadian soldiers.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Flying high (none / 0) (#59)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 03:06:04 PM PST
It prefers to kill off British and Canadian soldiers.

Especially when the pilots fly on speed. Gives certain new meaning to "war on drugs".


 
Hello dumbass! (none / 0) (#65)
by tkatchev on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 01:08:17 PM PST
Kosovo is not a city.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Hooray for Gun-Weilding Toddlers! (none / 0) (#82)
by Naive Fool on Sat Aug 24th, 2002 at 10:20:14 PM PST
While I bow to your obviously extensive experience in shooting people six inches in front of you, I must take issue with the idea that the first thing a five-year-old would do with a gun is defend himself. It is obvious that any five-year-old that deserves to live would either hand the gun, safety engaged of course, to the nearest responsible adult, or else go big game hunting. Of course, it is a self-evident fact, as expounded in the "Davy Crocket" song, that a real man can kill a black bear at three with his bare hands. Some late-blooming children may need guns to defend themselves from their schoolmates, but a real manly boy will go with the prefered method of ripping their opponent's still-beating heart out of their chest and eating it as they stare into their dying eyes. The circumstances under which the average five-year-old would need a gun are both obvious and commonplace. Say, for example, that Al Qaeda terrorists are attempting to highjack your nursery and crash it into Fort Knox, irradiating the US's gold supply and crippling its economy. Rather than pointing out the rather significant lacunae in this plan, calling for help, or simply ignoring the obviously doomed and rediculous plot, you child can simply shoot them in the kneecaps and then execute them, gangland style, in cold blood on your back porch. Now, not only has your child just saved his great and perfect nation from extremely uncertain catastrophy, but he has just bagged himself an all-star team of terrorists. Assuming he knows how to work the bbq, he may now feed himself for the next several weeks on fanatically delicious steaks, ribs and back-bacon. I know this, or something like it, happens every week in my neighbourhood, which is why our children are all supplied with the most "dangerous" (as whinging liberals, with their rediculous theories about human lives having some sort of meta-physical value or something, I never could understand that crap. A Human being is worth exactly the amount you can get for his organs, skin, hair and teeth on the black market, no more) weapons available. Just think, if the children on my block weren't all armed to the teeth, they would be helpless against bullies, pedophiles, terrorists, people they aren't particularly fond of, small rodents, ganster rap, long walks on the beach, people over sixty, and any other terrible thing you can imagine. As it is, not only are we all well protected, but we eat better than the mightiest Canibal King.

Here are some strong, yet strangely neglected arguments against gun-control:
1) Guns are mankind's most useful tool.
2 a) Guns are harmless tools, used for killing people weaker than ourselves.
b) Guns are Darwin's ultimate helper.
3) Giving your children a gun for Christmas will help solve the world's over-population problem.
4) Charton Heston likes them.
5) So did John Wayne.
6)If you don't have a gun, the next person to take a slight dislike to you might, and then how would you kill him? With you Democratic Party Membership Card?
7) A world without guns is a world without gun-deaths, and how on earth could that be a good thing?




 
The Penis-Gun connection (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:32:30 PM PST
Perhaps its more that Liberals believe that not everyone should have a penis. Of course, as penises will always be available on the black market, policemen and women will always need them, and of course the army and so on, but it should certainly be much more difficult to get one. Since the incidence of penis ownership is higher in some parts of the country, many would argue that this is a regionalist idea, and that those in the south, where more people own penises, would suffer disproportionately from penis-control legislation. Others argue that without the right to carry a penis, they will be unable to protect themselves, and that they would only ever use their penis is self-defence. The truth is that you are seven times more likely to use your penis on a family member than on a criminal. By banning the use of Assault Penis's and tightening controls on Hand-Penis's, we could drasticaly reduce the incidence of penis related deaths, and especially those involving family members (tee hee, I just noticed this apalling pun and apologise for its repeated appearance). Also, by reducing the general availability of penis's, we could prevent children from using them. Support your local "Toy's for Penis's" program, and make sure kids in your neighbourhood have something more safe and innocent to play with.


 
I'm astounded. (none / 0) (#32)
by jvance on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 01:31:00 AM PST
Men are superior because they can participate in golden shower gay porn? Good lord man, you can do better than that!


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Maybe I'm wrong after all (none / 0) (#37)
by Juan Fernandez on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 10:52:04 AM PST
Thousands of raging e-mails coming from the female readers of Adequacy fill my inbox. I have read some of them and found interesting arguments supporting the theory that women are superior to men. Just to mention some of them:
- Women can urinate blood without dying some days later (thanks to fiona33@hotmail.com)
- Women feet are smaller, so they can go closer to the sink in the kitchen and wash the dishes more easily (thanks to desperatehusbandseek@yahoo.com)
- Women are a faster communication channel than men. Just look at the fact that Jesus Christ showed himself to women when resurrected before he did to men. That way he made sure the news were spreading quicker (thanks to holymary_poppins@hotmail.com)


 
sacrifice (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by buridan on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 08:55:19 AM PST
wiccan's as we all know are really a secret catholic cabal which instantiate a seeming alternative to scare people to the mother church. It is the same with satanists and their right wing parallel the southern baptists. All sacrifices as such should be understood to be supporting the papists.


There is something there. (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 12:03:05 PM PST
The spirit of Buridan lives in you, with its big long pointy haired ears.


 
Channelling elenchos, please bear with me... (none / 0) (#66)
by hauntedattics on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 02:51:45 PM PST
Putting aside the whole issue of mothers in the workplace, it concerns me that our esteemed Mr. Ganglian is so sickened and repulsed by the natural physical state and function of women that he prefers his girlfriend to resemble a young boy. Perhaps he didn't have the benefit of a lesbian upbringing.



 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.