Abigail

Oh Strange One, thank you. And it truly has been a pleasure to get to know you as well. Now where the heck is MY snowcone? :D Outofdafog, I am doing quite well these days, really. Like many of us, I have my triggers, but in the large scheme of things, they have little effect on my day to day life. Kathy, back at ya. :) ExC, I told ya you were my twin from another life Wayfer, despite the advances that both men and women have made in our culture, it is still difficult growing up female. Especially so when we are lacking in a role model from one gender or the other. Sudossuda, you have great heart and I am glad you have come to be a part of the Greasespot community. and Galen, Last, but most certainly not least. You, like our Strange one, are a gentleman among gentlemen. I think what goes on between brothers and sisters is not unusual in many families. It is often the result of childhood curiosity combined with gaps in adult supervision. I suspect that in and of itself it is not always damaging (which is not to say I condone it or think it is appropriate). I think the damage comes when society condemns us for what we did while we were yet ignorant, or when later sexual hurts occur. I am actually from the era following yours, a product of the 80's, though it sounds like things were not much different. It was the norm among the guys I knew too - to try to get a girl drunk or stoned and get her into bed. To count their sexual conquests as if the women they slept with were trophies for their mantel piece and not flesh and blood people with brains and hearts. I have no idea if the boys from the 90's or this decade have changed or not, but I sure hope so. It may simply be a "rite of passage" for males in general, I have no idea. I would never want someone to condemn themself for things they did in their past. We have all done things we are less than proud of. I would only hope we can take something away from this that would encourage us to be better people in the future. And I would hope it would help shed some light to those who are still somewhat in the dark, as to why this is such a highly charged topic here at the forums. I know there are a number of women here who have experienced far worse than I. And it is funny you should mention your lady friend from school. For me, it was reconnecting with a high school sweet heart, after some 15 or 16 years of silence - and talking through our history, that I was finally able to come to terms with my own past and begin to put it behind me.

Wow, Clay. It's been a very long time since I have read any Bible verses. You just gave me a whole new perspective that I will enjoy chewing on for a while. I have no idea if what I saw is what you see - bit it is really cool nonetheless. :D

I would add . . . I know there is a fairly large number of women here who have also faced situations similar to mine, at least at one point in their life. Statistically, the number of women who deal with this in their lives is quite high. So, whenever this topic is brought up, in whatever forum, it is likely to be an emotionally charged one for at least a handful of the people there, which is why great care should be taken when discussing it.

There have been a number of discussions of late regarding sexual abuse and rape. Included in these discussions have been questions regarding what the definition of rape is; where and when the victim may hold some responsibility; and how people react and perhaps over react when this topic comes up. I have shared a few bits and pieces of my experiences as a female in this world publicly - and even more privately because there are people I know in person who come to the cafe. But I think I will share it all publicly now, in the hopes that it may further understanding on the topic. My first experiences with sexuality occured when I was very young - probably around 8 or 9 years old. They involved being touched by my brother and his friends. As a young child I understood little of all of the moral implications of what was going on. I did understand my parents would be very upset if they knew. Sometimes when these events occured I was a willing participant - thrilled by all of the attention from my older brother and his friends. Sometimes I was not a willing participant and felt angry and ashamed because I knew my parents would see it as wrong. Then I hit Jr. high. I developed breasts before many of my classmates. I also lived in a rather rough neighborhood - there was very little parental supervision. For about two years I was almost daily molested by a gang of boys in our neighborhood. It was a university apartment complex and there were "tunnels" that connected the buildings. These boys would force me into the tunnels, kiss and touch me. There was never any penetration and in my mind I have never thought of it as rape (though some would), but merely (and I find it interesting that my mind would still minimalize these events by using the term merely) molestation. I went to my mom about what was going on and she did nothing to help me or to try to stop it. Years later I asked her why she didn't try to protect me, and all she could say is she had no memory of my ever having come to her. BUT, what I learned from those years of experience was that "no" didn't mean no in a men's world. My freshman year in high school we moved to a small town near the small town I was born in. For some reason (and I have always assumed it was because I was more developed than the other girls - or perhaps it was simply because I was a new girl - or even because I was from a city) a number of girls decided I was loose. Never mind that I was still a virgin - it made little difference. I did however manage to make a few friends via reconnecting with some girls I knew earlier in my childhood. One night we went to a party (yeah 13 and partying - but that is what one did in the U.P. in those days and even the parents seemed to have little concern about it). During the party a boy grabbed me and shoved me down on the floor. He the started kissing me and touching me. I struggled, but I am tiny. Thankfully, another girl saw what was going on and helped me. Despite the fact that I had a witness - the rumours that followed that night only furthered the reputation I had already been given (note - not earned). The summer going into my senior year in highschool (we were back in the city again by then) I was date raped by a boy I knew. I wasn't dating him, we were supposedly friends though, so I use that term so as to make it clear someone didn't just jump out of the bushes and grab me. I was not a willing participant - it was forced upon me. I was at a party and we were using nitrous oxcide (then known as whip its - I have no idea what they may be called now). It was really stupid on my part - especially the way we were using them. We didn't have balloons so we were emptying the cannisters into plastic bags and then putting the bags over our heads. We did it in pairs so that someone could watch and make sure we didn't suffocate. (Geez, just typing this makes me feel like such an idea for doing something so incredibly dangerous and dumb) I had known the boy who had the NO2 for a number of years. I trusted him. He had one cannister left and he invited me into his room to use it. I passed out while inside the plastic bag. When I came too, he was "having his way with me". That night changed the course of my future. However, it took me nearly 16 years to acknowledge to myself that I had been raped that night. Instead, I took all of the responsibility upon myself. I felt dirty, ashamed, and discusted with myself. After that night - I would become extremely uncomfortable whenever a man would "hit on me". Especially if it was someone I wasn't interested in. I felt like the word "whore" was written in scarlet letters on me somewhere. I felt very confused and mixed up inside. I didn't even know HOW to send out a clear and convincing "no" anymore. I would just mutter and fumble and try get away from the situation. Following those events, there were a number of years where I was "less than sexually moral". I didn't know how to say "no" so I said yes in an attempt to try to gain some control over the act when it took place. I also twisted the entire act so that in my mind it meant the person I was having sex with must really care about - even when that was not the case. Then came TWI and my marriage. During my marriage, my husband very much agreed with and lived by the teachings that "when you are married your body is now longer your own, but your spouses". I did learn how to send a definite "no" during those years, but it did me little good. Afterall, it was "off the word" for me to say no. He would badger me for hours on end. At times he would force himself upon me after I had fallen asleep. So - to sum this up. Rape can occur in many different fashions. It is NOT limited to the guy who jumps out of the bushes and forces himself upon you. Nor is it limited to the date who forces himself upon you. It can and does occur when you are not in a position to say no. It can and does occur do to coersion and not just physical force. Molestation and rape can both have long lasting psychological effects that one cannot simply "get over". Sometimes it can even take years for one to get past the denial stage.

Laleo, I think there is room for those who were willing participants here at the cafe. In fact, I think it could add much to our understanding of the culture of TWI. Likewise, I think very few took umbrage with the notion that someone might have had sex under morally ambiguous circumstances. What I found offensive was the statement that those who say they were raped did so merely because they felt scorned. That is an opinion that more than one person here at the cafe has had. It is also an opinion that many here will find hurtful, damaging, and offensive. And because it is an opinion, I think we should be free to respond to it as such. Any woman who calls "wolf" and falsely accuses someone of being raped does tremendous damage to those who truly have been raped. Any woman who incorrectly accuses someone who HAS been raped of making it up because they felt scorned, likewise does tremendous damage.

Okay, after taking a couple hours off to walk the river and feed the ducks with the kids, I'm ready to jump back in. :) Lotsa catching up to do "1. TWI fostered a "nitpicking-ness" surrounding words, unlike any other group of people with which I've been around. That similar nitpicking and desire to be so right (for some who post here), seems to carry over in their posting syle. " J, someone else mentioned nitpicking-ness on another thread today too. I do think we sometimes nitpick and I agree that it was fostered in TWI. But as my manner sometimes is, I like to post the other side of the coin. I can be VERY nitpicky about words - for me, it doesn't just come from TWI, but is simply how my brain works. Perhaps it is the result of growing up with a family full of lawyers. I can be at the doctor and the doctor may ask "does this hurt?" And my response is, define hurt. Because in my mind - I may feel a sensation that is somewhat uncomfortable, but I may not describe it as pain and I want to understand exactly what the doctor is looking for. In this medium, the words we chose can be even more crucial. "I wonder if part of the emotional temperature here lately is because of the posters who have been posting just to stir sh1t up and allowed to stalk posters, post hateful, venomous posts and otherwise contribute nothing of value. Sort of like inciting riot. " Belle, I do think that there is some validity to that idea. The mood at greasespot often seems to move in "waves". We can sometimes go for weeks and months with a smooth and gleaming shoreline and then the storms will come in and the waves get bigger and meaner. " To me though the issue of adultry/rape by leadership carries over into the heart of twi. In a sense I was "married" to the ministry, and I found them cheating on me. Any defense of the cheaters is revolting. The twi leader mentality was pervasive and damaging on many levels ... the clergy having sex with their "flock" is just one of the more obvious physical ramifications that can be more easily pointed out. Many prefer to minimalize that. I prefer to emphasize it." Rhino, on an emotional level I agree with you 100%. And for me too, that is a very emotionally charged topic. I do think, though, that we should try to leave room for the stories of good experiences, because to deny them is to deny part of the TWI experience. Kathy, I understand your perspective and respect it. You said: "I've seen nothing of sogwap to make me think she would be the type to belittle the ones abused. I think she meant to bring a truth here." Did you know Sogwap prior to the post in question? Not necessarily personally, but were you familiar with her other posts? Because if you were, I can't help but wonder if you didn't read her post through that filter. That's not a criticism, just a question. I have since gone back and read a number of posts by her that I had never previously seen, and it seems from those other posts that she has a very gentle and caring heart. I had never seen many of her posts prior to the one you quoted. So I took the post on face value. And at face value to me, the post very clearly stated that there were willing partners (which I do not doubt and would agree that their stories have validity and value). Her post also clearly stated to me that she believed the people that call rape are mad because of how it turned out....scorned women. Thought they would get more or the husband found out, whatever. Why would I think that? Because that is exactly what she said. Given the context of the thread, and the amount of back and forth that often goes on in threads that discuss the sexual abuses that took place in TWI, as to whether it really occured, as to whether the men who forced or coerced women hold any blame, as to whether or not a victim of force or coersion is also to blame, it is not hard to understand why people would be offended and angry by such a statement. Sometimes proper wording is crucial. Sometimes looking at the context and direction of the thread as a whole is also crucial. So, while I do understand how you could have viewed what was said in a different light, my question would be, can you not see how others might have seen it differently than you did?

"Perhaps this gets to the root of the problem. Too often when someone posts something that is true or a true fact at least in their life experience. Because it does not agree with the "by and large majority" who have the hurt perspective that you described above, and because of their "feelings" they perceive it to be an attack on them., " WhiteDove, I agree that this occurs and is a problem. I've seen it happen on both sides of the fence, but it is far more prevalent when people share about their good experiences. While I understand why this happens, I think we could all do well to remember if we didn't have at least SOME good experiences with TWI, none of us would have stuck around as long as we did. ***See, I am at least trying to be objective ;) *** "And yet the message sent although maybe not stated in English by the volume of immediate posts is that you can't be right and here is why: It was plagiarized, VPW abused women, you learned at the expense of others who were victimized, how dare you" I have to disagree with you to some extent here, at least from my own experience via the posts I have read. I don't think the majority of the posters are saying you can't be right in what you experienced, I think they are simply pointing out the incredibly high cost a number of us paid for the good experiences or valid teachings. I think also, they are expressing their opinion that someone who abuses women and plagarizes cannot be a MOG. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but that is how I have read it. "Perhaps if we could separate feelings from other issues and read what the poster is saying only without adding what we feel because of our experience into it we'd have less problems." I am sure your are correct on this. But we all tend to view things through our own filters to some degree or another. Personally, I feel that the debates often help us (in time) learn to adjust our filters to allow various points of view in. Again, I see this as part of the healing process - it is often painful, but that is the nature of healing even with physical problems. Paw, "I am using the threads I mentioned as examples of what I see happening here. There are people that lurk but won't post after seeing the way people are received here. And others that have posted, that I have been able to contact, leave because of the harshness that their ideas receive." I have mixed feelings on this one. When I first came to Greasespot I was on the receiving end of the name calling and accusations - I was called a troll, etc. And because I was still very much indoctrinated by TWI's teachings, many of my ideas were received with harshness. So, I do understand the distress this can cause. However, I firmly believe that it was because I was faced with these challenges that I "recovered" as quickly as I did. It was sink or swim - stand up for myself or give up. The opposition to my ideas forced me to view them through a different filter. No one forced me to change my ideas, but they did cause me to re-examine them, which resulted in my changing them. I do think it is sad that there are people who leave or won't post for fear of the response they will get. But, there are other forums where they can speak up and NOT be challenged. So I guess my perspective is that in the large scheme of things, there are enough ExWayfer communities to meet the needs of almost all ex-wayfers, but no one size will fit all. "We misdirect our anger here, imo. Wayfer Not -- the fact of the matter is that willing partners are out there and their voices are just as valid." Agree and agree. But I tend to think as long as you are dealing with people, the misdirection is going to occur and the only way to stop it is to heavily moderate and censor posts.

I guess I am confused by some of this. I think I finally figured out who the two posters are that Paw was referring to and I have to say I agree with him 100% with respect to what happened and I am disappointed to learn they may never post here again. However, with regard to some other examples from this thread - It seems to me that it is a "no brainer" that when you go to a forum that is by and large made up of people who feel they were hurt by their experience with TWI, VPW, or LCM and you post in defense of them that you are going to get some angry responses. Likewise when you post on a topic where sexual abuse is being discussed and you make a statement that in effect says those women were not, in fact, sexually abused but participated willingly and are now crying sexual abuse because it didn't turn out they way they expected , you are going to get some angry responses. Yes, everyone is entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to express it. But you cannot expect others to agree with it, or even like it. Also, I find it very interesting that a couple of you who are defending the notional that all posters should be treated with respect and given the benefit of the doubt are comparing others to a flock of chickens attacking the wounded. Seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black. Not once have I or any of the others who "seem" to view things in a similar manner as my POV called anyone names or made anything even remotely close to a derrogatory remark towards those with the opposing POV. Edited to ad qualifiers

"In the case of new posters, accusing them of being fakes, trolls, or WAYGB right out of the gate is not going to bring much new blood into the discussions around here" I agree with you 100% on that score! It adds nothing to the discussion, nor does it even express an opposing opinion. "Let's try an emotionally neutral analogy:" But that is exactly the problem, Linda, we often are not dealiing with emotionally neutral issues. IN fact, some of the issues are highly emotional. So while your suggestion is great in theory - you are dealing with people and people are emotional creatures by nature and cannot always maintain a "neutral" stance. Also, I would suggest it works both ways. When someone is posting on a topic that is obviously an emotionally charged one, then one should take care in how they word things and/or not be surprised when they get an angry and/or emotional response. For example, someone came into the chatroom one night and made a statement regarding the negative responses they were getting to their tag line (which was one that anyone could readily have known would have been offensive to the majority of the posters here). So I asked the person what kind of response they expected. To make a long story short, the person eventuall acknowledged that they expected and wanted the response they got. So my question then was why they were complaining if they got what they wanted? I find it very interesting that those who seem to be accusing others here at the cafe of "playing the victim card", then turn around and complain that they are being victimized. "If we had a way to know people's intent at the time of their first posts, I suppose behavior like this could be nipped in the bud. We don't. We can be cautious and see how they behave themselves. My experience is that people reveal plenty about themselves and their motives if given room to "speak." Also, it's important to remember that an opinion contrary to the majority opinion here does not automatically constitute harassment or cruielty" Again, I agree on all points. I can only speak for myself here, but I do take the time to read quite a few posts before forming an opinion, and so in reference to what I stated earlier - I was not judging based on only one, two, or three posts but on quite a number of them. Likewise, I do not believe an opinion contrary to the majority constitutes harassment or cruelty - but intentionally using words (particularly with respect to labels or an offensive tag line as I cited in my earlier example) one KNOWS will offend certainly can constitute harassment or cruelty. For example, we do not go around using the "n" word, because we know it is offensive - so if someone came in and used that word, not just once, but repeatedly - well I would view that as harassment. And again, to clarify, the posteres I was referencing are not longtime posters here that are sometimes referred to as "VPW Defenders". My issue has nothing to do with opposing points of view. "I think few people have come here with "no other intent but to harass, insult, or cause pain."" I agree. But it does occur. "I think back on how I dealt with a bullying coworker. " Again, I by and large agree. BUT I think, for some of us (note the qualifier :D), we were bullied and beaten down in TWI to the degree that we need to learn how to speak up for ourselves again too. Part of this process sometimes comes through not remaining silent when faced with bullying. Additionally, while ignoring may work in some instances, it does not always work. Sometimes one has to show that they will stand up and push back.

Allan, I intentionally left names out, because it detracts from the point I was making and the questions I had. I also think it is in poor taste to bring someone's name into a thread when that person has not posted on the thread - the same with bringing in posts from other threads without getting permission from the one who wrote it. thanks Kathy.

okay - thanks Kathy, I couldn't find it. I didn't want to repost it here anyway, just wanted to read again to once again re-check my own POV.

I think this thread is heading in a bad direction, in that dragging out posts from other threads, without the complete context leaves a misleading impression, and as far as I can tell, the post in question has been removed. I am not going to defend my position on that particular thread and though I could drag in posts from other threads where the poster in question makes statements that are equally over broad and insulting to a large number of posters here, I think it detracts from the overall point. I get from his post that Paw wants us to moderate ourselves better. Rarely would that be a bad suggestion, and if he had not pulled the example he did, I would have simply agreed. However, I felt that some clarification was needed with respect to one of the examples he used. And again, I ask - when people come in here and post with no other intent but to harass, insult, or cause pain to one or more of the rest of us AND the seem inclined to stay for days, weeks, and months so they can continue - what are we to do about that? Are we supposed to just sit back and take it? Because in respect to the two posters I mentioned in my earlier post - I did ignore them for quite a long time. I saw their posts and chose not to respond. But eventually, as these two posters continued to harass people over and over again from thread to thread to thread (and in one case, one poster in particular was being harassed from thread to thread to thread) it just didn't feel right inside to continue ignoring it.

Sogwap - sometimes it is good to walk away from the computer for a few minutes before hitting that "post" button. The come back and reread what you wrote to see if it really says what you wanted it to. I understand what happened in the other thread. I understand that what it "seemed" like you were saying was not what you intended to say. Likewise, it can take some time and practice to learn to communicate via this medium - it does take a little extra care with wording because we have no facial expressions or tone of voice. For example - when you said: "Do I now need to explain weights? DUH....probably with this group." Well, I can understand your feeling frustrated and angry with those who misunderstood you (though I clearly understand how and why they misunderstood you). But here again you are using statements that read as if they are all inclusive, which leaves me wondering why you would be angry, sarcastic, and belittling to those who defended you on the other thread. Perhaps that is not how you intended to come across in the above statement - but that is how it communicates. as someone else said, qualifiers are extremely important when we communicate in writing.

"In a thread recently, a woman spoke openly about an affair with LCM. She made some observations that, I felt, were honest, not GSPC but honest. What followed was a vile bashing of her and her opinions. Was she not entitled to her opinion?" Paw, I know the thread you speak of, and I must say - given the way the woman in question told her story and the way she worded her opinion, it did very much appear as if she were the one casting stones at some who were victims. I am sorry, I understand that she did try to clear up her intent and I think that is great. Likewise, I am more than willing to recognize and understand that sometimes what we think we are saying and what we are actually saying are not one and the same. In other words, we sometimes word things poorly. Additionally, the problem is compounded by the lack of facial expressions and tone of voice. However, I reread the original post several times and it was (imho) worded poorly, leaving the wrong impression. And yes, she is entitled to their opinion, but is everyone else not likewise entitled to express theirs? And again, I agree that we should exercise some self-control and self-moderating - but sometimes our buttons get pushed and we push back - that is part of being human. Likewise, while some of the responses may have been harsh - so were the implications of her opinion as stated in that original post, even if they weren't intended. " have had numerous emails telling me to be careful of two posters that "know" LCM. They will most likely NEVER post here again." I do not have any idea who the two posters are whom you are referring to here Paw. But it does seem to me (and I think I am rather thick skinned most of the time) that we have had a few posters of late who's only goal and intent is to harrass and cause pain. One poster even acknowledged as much in the chatroom one night. The other poster seems to be quazi stalking another poster from thread to thread with no intention other than to harass - I say that because he does not seem to add to the coversation in any form beyond that of insults directed at one person in particular. Although, he seems to be more than happy to take pot shots at other posters as well, again without adding anything to the conversation. "I am not going to threaten any censorship. I am not going to threaten to close forums down. I AM going to ask that you NOT become the people from whence we came." I am glad you aren't going to threaten any censorship, nor close the forums. But I would be curious as to what it is you suggest we do when faced with a poster who's only intent seems to be to antagonize the hell out of everyone else. Yes, I know we can ignore - but to me that too seems like doing what we had to do in TWI. Close our mouths and take it. I guess I think there is value in standing up to some of these people and calling a spade a spade. Just my thoughts, for what they are worth. I understand that figuring out how to deal with all of us Ex-Wayfers is quite a handful - I don't blame you for getting frustrated and even ....ed off. I just think that what you are seeing pretty much "goes with the territory". I am sorry there are people who won't post here, or do and then get "run off". But if the alternative is to sit back and take the insults silently, or to be censored - - well, I think there are already websites for ex-wayfers that are more than happy to censor anything that might stir up some emotions, and there is a reason why I don't go to those sites.

WTH - your posts are so lacking in logic that are not really worth responding to. And yet, fool that I am, I will. "they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel." The term "Jew" can be used in reference to either relgion, ethnicity, or both. One can be religiously Jewish via conversion and have no "Jewish blood". One can be ethnically Jewish and practice any religion they choose. As it is within Christianity, so it is among many religions including Judaism. There are the more fundamental groups and the more liberal groups and rarely do they agree on much. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for you to understand - beyond it doesn't fit with your agenda. "There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. " The same can be said of Christianity. A person can be a member of a Christian church and it doesn't make one a Christian. Likewise there are many differences of opinion regarding what makes one a Christian. Some require a belief in the Trinity, others would call belief in the trinity a false god and therefore those who hold such beliefs would NOT be considered Christians. And the part that shows your ignorance with respect to Jews the greatest. . . . . "Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic." The difference between Ashkenzai and Sephardic jews is not religous or even necessarily "ethnic" in terms of this discussion, but cultural. Ashkenzai Jews are generally those from Eastern Europe and the Sephardic Jews are from Spain and middle eastern countries. Relgiously they would vary in the same sense as all people of one faith - some Ashkenzai Jews are more orthodox, some less. Some Sephardic Jews are more orthodox and some less. The cultural difference stem from the incorporation of the cultures they were living among. The use different foods for their holidays, their prayers may differ some as well.

Oldies, I was working on a reply to you with regard to the financial aid, but then I got distracted, hit the wrong key, and you can guess the ending. So, because I do not have the patience to do it all over again I will merely suggested you go to us.gov and do a search on foreign aid. You may find it quite disturbing, especially in light of the fact that Israel has averaged $2.45 billion a year. Some facts I remember off the top of my head - for 2005/2006 -Africa 2 Billion -Jordan 350 million -Egypt was getting 2 billion a year up until the 9/11 - I am not sure what, if anything they are getting now -The Palestinians get several hundred million also - though I don't recall the exact figure. I do know Bush authorized a HUGE amount to them for Gaza once Israel completes it's withdrawal. -Saudi Arabia and Pakestan also get financial support, again I don't recall the figure -The house recently passed 56 million to "promote democracy" in Iran - the legislation is now pending in the senate. If you add it up - you will find the Muslem countries get far more money from us than Israel does. As for Weirwille's logic - well Mo summed it up well . . . . "Okay WTH, Let's say You are right, I don't believe that for a second, but lets say you are right. You still have eleven million dead people at the hands of Hitler--so I guess your stance is since they weren't Jews that's okay???? Face it, Dead is dead, Genocide is genocide, murder is murder. Hitler planned and condoned it and your precious VPW whole heartedly supported it." The same is true today. Whether the Jews of today are genetically related to the Jews of Biblical times or not (and DNA studies would support the notion that they are) killing us because we call ourselves Jews is still murder. Just as killing Christians would be. Would you support spending money for Christians who are being persecuted and threatened with genocide? If so, what is the difference. If not, why not? "Encouraging is one thing, being mired down with decades of war with the middle east, costing many lives and much $billions, is another..." Our "wars" with the middle east are only minutely tied to Israel at best. They have far more to do with our fight against communism and promotion of democracy than anything else. We have removed and replaced many a dictator in our 'tactical manuevers' against the Soviet Union, including the installation of Sadman Insane in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Would the terrorists cease their attacks against U.S. if the U.S. showed a good faith effort to cease support of their enemies?" I doubt it, for all of the reasons I have already mentioned. If anything, I suspect it would increase because our withdrawl would indicate to them it is working.

"I already presented my solution in a previous post: allocate the current $3-4 billions we send over there using it instead for repatration of Jews and others to come here and be Americans. Get U.S. out of this perpetual support of Zionism, which not only deeply antagonizes the Arab/Muslim world causing all matter of endless wars and killings against us, and makes us look partial and subservient to this cause. " Yeah - I've seen your solution, however I find it to be very impractical and unrealistic. For example, say we could actually convince the majority of the Jews to leave Israel and move to the U.S. What would happen to the non-Jews in Israel? There are a large number of people there who are not Jewish. How do you think the "new Palestinian government" would treat the Christians who live in Israel? How do you think Americans would react if a couple of million Jewish people came here and either a)took jobs that otherwise might have gone to those born here and/or b) ended up on government assistance because there simply weren't enough jobs available to support a couple million Jews? In addition, the reading I have done with regard to how the Middle East feels about Americans has little to do with Israel and much more to do with American morals - or lack of morality in their view, and our insistance upon pushing our values upon their countries. They are not overly fond of Christians, they despise women who walk around uncovered, much less women who show their bellies and more. They are discusted by our fast food and material good consumerism (though they have no problems with taking our cash). "As opposed to instead acting in the best interests of another country, over ours? Abso-f-in-lutely!" Well I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. While I certainly believe we should "count the cost", I would be hard pressed to urge our politicians to pull funding (for example) to help solve the AIDs problem in South Africa. Nor do I necessarily want our country overrun with immigrants. Not that I am opposed to immigration in general mind you - but too much too fast would be detrimental to our economy. In addition, eventually we would run out of green space and other valuable resources. Better, I think, to work towards encouraging other countries to become equally wonderful, without hindering the people from living in them from have their own governmental system and their own values. "We wouldn't be walking away, we'd be changing policy to get out of their affairs and helping folks in the process; and terrorists would welcome that action and the terrorism against us would cease (why do you think we are targets now?), and it would make us safer. We are playing in THEIR backyard, we should get out..." Baloney. We will not "get out of their affairs" until we are no longer dependant upon their oil. Even then we won't if we think our economy will benefit by buying and selling goods with them - regardless of what they value, because those in power in our government as well as theirs profit greatly from it. For these same reasons, the terrorism would not cease. You seem to forget that most of the terrorists are fanatics, not average citizens. Many of them hold deeply fundamental religious beliefs and are not just opposed to the Jewish people but to all people who do not practice their version of Islam.

LOL - Safari, I hear ya. My Jacob has no internal editor and to this day will blurt out whatever comes to mind. One time while shopping at our local "one stop and shop" Meijer, Jacob saw a midget (or whatever the politically correct term of the day is). Not only did he insist on pointing the man out to me, but before I could stop him he ran up to the man and DEMANDED (and I MEAN demanded) to know why the man was so short. Initially, I think the man tried to ignore him, but there is no ignoring Jacob when his inquiring mind wants to know - so finally the man just said "cause God made me this way". I wanted to disappear through a hole in the floor, but no such hole appeared for me.

"Or perhaps a better question maybe would be ... are there any policies we may apply right now that would be more profitable to the U.S., than our current policy?" I am certain there are. I'm assuming you want this strictly limited to our dealings with Israel and not policies in general... :D I think we could start by taking a look at what Jimmy Carter has done in the past. I am not saying he was succesful - but I think the idea of getting the leaders from all parties in one room and telling them they can't leave until they agree on a compromise would be a good start. I also think we need to involve Jordan and some of the other neighboring countries, as they have much at stake to. Why is it that Jordan didn't want the Palestinian refugees? Afterall, they were of the same nation at one time. In truth - I think there is little the U.S. can do, beyond offering political support. True peace will only come when either 1) the Jews are wiped off the face of the middle east or 2) Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia put pressure on the Palestinians to further peace, offer refuge to those who need it, and put forth their own serious efforts to end terrorism. Of course we won't put political pressure on our oil suppliers - see money makes the world go round regardless of what is "right" or moral. And therein lies the real problems - money, money, money. Same with Iraq - you can blame the war in Iraq on Israel - but I'd say it has far more to do with that precious oil. In fact, I'd dare say if we were not dependant on oil from the middle east, our policies there would be vastly different. Why is it that Bush has not supported the notion of a security fence? Bush does not want Israel to go after the Hamas leaders - who are terrorists - yet Bush himself has declared war on terrorism. Huh? Which policies specifically would you like to discuss. OM?

Let me ask you this Oldies, If we were to wash our hands of Israel today, what do you think would happen? My guess is that there would be war and given the current climate - it is quite possible the Jews in Israel would be wiped out. Is that okay with you? Does it matter to you one way or another? As a country - should we always act only in our own best interest? Or are there other things that should be taking into consideration, and if so what? Also, what message would it send to the terrorists if we walked away from Israel today? Do you really think it would endear us to them or simply confirm for them that their acts of terrorism work. Do you think the all our problems with the Middle East are based only upon our support of Israel? Is it not possible there is more to it than that? And if there is more to it than that, what do you see as the additional problems?

and I would add - when you focus on someone's weight by referring to them as fat, obese, a lard foot - whatever, you do them far more harm than good. Most women think they are over weight even when they are not. Most women who are over weight are already painfully aware of that fact and do not need someone else to point it out to them. In fact, it is the over focusing on weight that actually exacerbates the problem. The focus shouldn't be a weight - being fat or thin, attractive or not. The focus should be on health. A woman who wants to lose weight and whose focus is simply on pounds and inches is setting themselves up for failure from the get go. Instead one should focus on self acceptance and self love. From there it becomes easier to make healthy choices and live a healthy lifestyle - which should be the ultimate goal. Then the pounds will naturally come off anyway.

What she said - lol. Also they have these new spongie cushions that they place on the bottom side, which also eases the the discomfort. and I have to add - the pancake description only furthers the idea that mamograms are awful. Going into my first one, I had a mental image of this huge giant metal vice like machine that was going to flatten my rather large breasts into a literal pancake sized thing - it was very intimidating. In reality the machine was not metal, was not particularly huge and while they did smoosh some - the result was nothing even remotely near a pancake.

I appreciate all the responses everyone - thank you. Boy this has been a though thread to read!

"The resulting fighting and carnage is a result of The Palestinians and the Israelis making choices for the actions. The United states doesn't send emissaries every morning to put guns in these peoples hands and declare- Fighting starts in 10 minutes" Mo, I am not sure what your point is here. In reality, the U.S. puts guns in the hands of many people in many countries, because we make a profit by doing so. In either case, the U.S. was supportive of the events that took place which lead to the current situation. Am I saying it is entirely the fault of the U.S.? Heck no! I am simply saying we played a part. I would add, as a Jew, that a part of me understands and supports the notion of a homeland and the reasoning behind why Israel should be it. On the other hand - as I said previously, I think it would be foolish for all Jews to live in one land, given the amount of hate so many have for us. Additionally, given the history between the Jews and the Muslims, it was foolish to make a homeland that was surrounded by them. Perhaps, not so very different than trying to give the Jews a homeland right in the middle of natzi germany. I would end by saying I am aware that there are some generalizations in this post with regard to Jews and Muslims. I realize that not all Jews and Muslims are at odds with each other and I have had a number of Muslim friends over the course of my lifetime. I am simply trying to speak to the larger issue of how things have gone in the 'political arena'

Here is a website you might find very informative, with regard to the Israel/Palestine issue. It has maps and is easy to understand. I will post some excerts from it below: " Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I" "the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews! " "In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan " "Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. " "The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River." "On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well." "When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees." "The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine" I will only add that the U.S. has supported the notion of Israel and a "homeland" for the Jews from the beginning, for political and religious reasons.