Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in lil_vickie's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Thursday, August 20th, 2009
12:12 am	Wow. My head is spinning from all I learned tonight when I decided to research this a little further. It all started when I caught this little headline: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/ne...ov=ap&type=lgns EDIT: They changed the story that had been posted here. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. Anyway, here's a more informative link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207653/Womens-800m-gold-medal-favourite-Caster-Semenya-takes-gender-test-hours-World-Championship-race.html Apparently, she did so well, and has some male qualities, which caused her "femaleness" to be questioned. Now, I didn't even know that was possible. But with some research, I found out that Gender Testing was extremely popular in the Olympic games beginning in 1968, and ending shortly before 2000 (The Sydney Games). In a few cases, it even resulted in some being stripped of their medals, or refused the opportunity to compete. Some were told to fake injuries to cover up public disgrace. One notable female athlete even attempted suicide after public disgrace linked to gender testing. Sources: http://www.livescience.com/history/...ics-gender.html http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/con...derTesting.html Now, the other thing I didn't quite get was this: Quote:           He said the “extremely complex, difficult” test has begun but results were not expected for weeks. The test requires a physical medical evaluation and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist and gender expert.     It would seem to me, at first thought, that this should not all be necessary. When the drug test is administered, it is done under direct view - in other words, the athlete must urinate while being watched by the physician. This keeps there from being any possible switches going on. Thus, they would see the physical characteristics - without even having the test of being "paraded nude in front of a board of female physicians", as one source I noted states happened one year. However, it appears it is not as easy as all that. Not just because of Sexual Reassignment Surgery - before the Athens Games in 2004 it was ruled that transsexuals can compete as women, provided they have been on hormone therapy for at least two years. At any rate, for the person who is sure she can determine gender regardless, this was found by me to be fun: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/...gendertest.html I got it right, but then I am a bit biased. I am not sure if the same case history is presented to everyone. Let me be clear on one thing - I only use the word "gender" here because that is the term they are using. In my own opinion, this is not dealing with the area of gender, but actually with the area of biological sex, which is a different ballgame altogether. (Comment on this)
Saturday, March 7th, 2009
12:18 am	Banning Barbie? I've never really been a big Barbie fan. Sure, I like to look at them when I go to the Times Square Toys R Us with Spinner; I mean, there is a whole floor dedicated to them. Sure, I do own one, but that is because she is an Irish Princess. But I am more drawn to vinyl dolls like American Girl, or very small dolls like Polly Pocket (I do have several Kelly dolls as well). All the same, I don't begrudge Barbie and I think she has been overall a good influence on young girls (with the occassional exception like Malibu Barbie). Not everyone agrees with me, of course (big surprise). Some people apparently think Mattel is outrageous because Barbie is actually pretty. Okay, more like "hot", but let's keep this a family discussion. Well, what was Mattel supposed to do - create an ugly doll? More realistic...? How about this, Dieting Barbie - comes with her own scale and exercise mat. I think they can even steal the mat from Gymnast Barbie leftovers. Or maybe Soap Opera Housewife Barbie - comes with her own couch, TV, and box of bon-bons. Get both for a special price. You think little girls want to play with that? Are those the supposed realistic values you would like them to learn? Barbie has had a number of high-impact careers.  You can't be some of these things without high aspirations and a lot of work towards the goal. Oh wait - is that one of those VALUES that Barbie supposedly does not teach?     Doctor     Dentist     Paleontologist     Air Force Fighter Pilot     Movie producer     Olympic gymnast     Olympic figure skater     Professional figure skater     Spanish Language Teacher     Sign Language Teacher     Pediatrician     Surgeon     Veterinarian     Ambassador for World Peace     Astronaut     Candidate for President     President Granted, Congressman is not on her resume (although President IS...). All the same, one Democrat from West Virginia has called for a ban on Barbie: http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=8458 Just in case you are too lazy to click the link... Democratic Delegate Jeff Eldridge has introduced a bill to ban the sale of Barbies. He says: "I’m tired of the thought that if you’re beautiful, you don’t have to be smart. I think it sends the wrong message to our kids.” Let's start with the obvious. I know the Democrats would really like to change this, but that last time I checked, America was still a free market society. According to Answers.com, a free market society is defined as, "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions." I don't know - it seems to me that banning Barbie is more than a "minor restriction". Ok - now let's talk about what he had to say; "I’m tired of the thought that if you’re beautiful, you don’t have to be smart." It would appear that Mr. Eldridge is "calling Barbie out," so to speak. Is he not, by this statement, calling Barbie dumb. Well, I suppose a dumb person could become President - the current political state of this country proves that. Maybe a dumb person could be a gymnast, skater, or Producer. Some Ambassadors would give pause to those measuring intelligence. But surgeons, teachers, and Paleontologists are pretty bright. I don't think I would mind my daughter being pretty AND aspiring to be one of these things. Why stop at Barbie? Why not eliminate American Girl because Samantha is rich, Felicity submits to learning how to act like a "lady", or Adie teaches African American girls to focus on the past of slavery? Why not eliminate Disney, which seems to teach a child must be an orphan or at least not have two parents in order to succeed? And by all means - all beauty pageants must go as well ... well, maybe that part wouldn't be so bad. Current Mood: annoyed (Comment on this)
Friday, December 12th, 2008
1:39 pm	To Be Used For Comments on Spinner's Knuffles Article Please comment on Spinner's Tinkerbell Movie Review from Knuffles (to be released by Dec. 15) here. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
1:33 pm	No Kidding - Aussie Girl Dolls! I didn't do enough research - no time now - to see if this is a branch off the Mattel universe or not - Mattel being the company who holds American Girl - but it appears there is now a line of dolls very much like American Girls, but they are Australian Girls. Checking the price, I found that they are $63 US ($99 AUS), which is considerably less than American Girl. However, what with international shipping I am afraid it would come to about the same... http://www.australiangirldoll.com.au/index.html (Comment on this)
1:31 pm	Mattel Screws Up On New American Girl Movie The next American Girl movie is supposed to be a direct-to-DVD film, and will NOT be one of the historical girls. Leave it to Mattel to screw up a good thing! Apparently they made a movie to introduce their new "Girl of The Year" doll, which of course are the present day dolls they added after taking over the line from Pleasant Company. The movie is entitled "Chrissa Stands Strong", and is due out in early January. Personally, I think it sucks. It appears they are abandoning the historical angle altogether, which is what made them so popular in the first place. Furthermore, this movie is an obvious marketing ploy- the others may have been as well, but at least they didn't make it so obvious. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/que...hp?startid=5#/6 (Comment on this)
Friday, September 19th, 2008
11:42 am	More Thoughts on America's Got Talent I have to be honest - I can't believe she actually got this far, but Kaitlyn Maher was eliminated last night. I watched her performances - I'm sorry, but she went flat a LOT, and several of the songs they chose for her were just pitched too high. Now, yes, I know she is four. She did very well for four years old. But there are a lot of adults who were just plain better because they are adults that got eliminated in favor of a little girl who kept going flat. She got passed on because she is cute, plain and simple. But if they had to pass on an actual talented act with children, the Wright Kids had the right stuff, and I can't believe the Taubl family fell out before the top 10. Oh - and let's not forget Elite - the act with the 10 year old martial arts girl and her Dad. They didn't even make the cut to the top 20, beat out by.... an ELVIS IMPERSONATOR? Sorry, but Shirley Osbourne let her hormones get the best of her judgment there. But let's be honest. The prize has to eliminate some of the acts with children. A headline show in Vegas ... I don't think kids are supposed to even be allowed in those clubs. The show probably wouldn't even start until after her bedtime! And could a 4 year old possibly sustain on stage for an hour and a half? One other thing worried me. The virtual black hole that seems to suck up every child star. Are there any that remain wholesome nowadays? You can find videos of Britney Spears when she was very young on Star Search, and singing at a wedding in a church in Louisiana - an innocent kid, and look what super-stardom did to her. Jessica Simpson - same. Lindsey Lohan. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. And the list goes on. I really don't think it is good for kids to get that much stardom that early on. I did notice something quite interesting at the end of the program last night too. In very tiny letters at the bottom of the screen, flashed on and off very quickly, it said the $1 million is paid out in an annuity... over the course of 40 years! Now you take someone my Big Brother's age - he is 35. That is considered young. In 40 years he will be 75. Holy mackerel! :: Giggle :: He'd be drawing Social Security before the annuity was even paid up (except that he won't be drawing any Social Security, but that is beside the point). But, at any rate, Kaitlyn Maher [I]is[/I] cute.  :: shrugs :: (Comment on this)
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008
10:57 am	Tapping Dads - "I did it to spend more time with my daughter." I admit it - I have a big problem with one of America's favorite talents - The Tapping Dads. They recently made the cut into the top 20 on America's Got Talent, which is the only show of its type you'll ever catch me watching (and that is because kids have as much chance as adults of any age). This particular group says they got their start by wanting to spend more time with their daughters, so they got involved in dance class with them. I think that is great and noble. If I had any daughters, I would definitely do the same exact thing (of course, I just really want to tap dance in a cute little outfit, but that aside...). At first I rooted for them, and I was happy when they made it further into the top performers. However, something happened along the way. I note that they now must spend all their time learning new routines, polishing the act, etc. I find myself hoping they don't make the cut. I'll tell you why. If the original intent was to spend more time with their daughters, they certainly are not doing that now. Couple that with the fact that the winner gets their own Vegas show. How much time do you think Dad will have to spend with his family if he has to rehearse for his Vegas show all the time? The original intent, which is beautiful and quite probably the only thing that has helped them get as far as they are (they aren't all that great dancers yet) goes right out the window. So, yes - I hope the Tapping Dads are defeated, and I hope they take defeat proudly and get back to the dance studio with their daughters, which is right where they ought to be. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, April 24th, 2008
12:04 pm	A Response to "One News Now" on Their Article Concerning Sex Change Therapy and Children Well, it is time to take to task some of my "Christian Brethren" again - though it may be unlikely any of them will read this. Maybe it will eventually find its way into internet searches and lead the masses here though, you never know. I wish to respond publicly to this article, since I doubt the comments I sent them will actually be published on the pages of "One News Now". Here is the article: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=77176 Please note that in the ever present fight to keep journalism unbiased, ONN does an excellent job here (read as sarcasm). They give hardly any space to the statements of those who support the clinic, and space only to the most outspoken of the critics. The entire mood and tone of the article is slanted. Of course, this should not surprise me, as again and again I read them complaining about how Christians are being "silenced" and not allowed to express their views - but in the very next breath they are stating that we need to silence those who speak out against Christianity (they have a great article like that on Bill Maher). If Christians should be able to freely express their views (and I agree that they should), then so should others. You can't complain about your freedom being quelled while at the same time try to quell the freedom of others! Back to the article in question here, the poll that is included is stated in this way: "Would you, as a parent, permit your pre-teen child to undergo hormone therapies based on how he or she 'feels' about their God-determined gender?" This is worded in the most obnoxious way imaginable. These people have obviously never dealt with a person who is transgendered. One who is TG does not just "feel" like they are a different gender than their physical body shows. I did not change the poll in any way, they have "feels" in quotes in it. Further, they indicate that God determined the gender. I have a question for these people - if God determined the gender, did God make a mistake? As I see it, God does not control gender or gender roles - WE do. Society is that which has assigned these predetermined ideals of what boys should like and what girls should like. God says there is "no male or female" (Galatians 3:28). God does not see race or gender or social standing, he only sees his children. God doesn't care what underwear you wear, or how you fix your hair - he cares about whether you are following his Word and have asked for the washing away of sins that can only come from his Son. The article also makes a point that many seem to ignore, including the journalist. These children have biological or anatomical abnormalities. This is more proof that there is so muh more to this than just how the child "feels". I m truly appalled by how much was ignored in this article. A child, who already feels out of place anyway because that's just part of being a child, who is transgendered looks out at the world and can't understand where they belong. They look at their own sex and realize they aren't like them, then look at the other and realize that while in mind they are more like them, they aren't physically. If they try to join in with that group, generally they find themselves pushed out. Many end up committing suicide, and many others end up in therapy, some with therapists who also do not understand TG and attempt to "cure" them. They face a daily horrible inner struggle, and who is the person that has never experienced any of this turmoil, and yet will sit in judgment of them? Here is the comment I sent - I make it open here. "I am angered and saddened by the "comments" I am reading concerning this. Do even ONE of you know the pain that comes from being transgendered? How in the world can you judge without having ANY idea about it?? The so-called "poll" is also VERY one-sided. It asks if you would allow your children to undergo these therapies "based on how they FEEL". Excuse me?? First of all, what makes you think God assigns gender? As far as I read the Bible, God doesn't care about gender. Further, this is not something that is simply based on a "feeling". These children have real problems, and I pray to God that none of you who made these hateful comments and are parents ever have any children that do have such problems, because you are obviously ill-equipped to deal with them, and receiving your information from a very questionable source." (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, February 14th, 2008
11:51 pm	More morphing I find these to be a lot of fun. I think the first one I did with Selma Blair was the best, and then the one with Charlotte Church is pretty good too. These three from today show me morphing to my favorite, Penelope Cruz, then one that is not such a great match, but it is another Selma Blair. The third shows that this program, while great, still has a few definite bugs in it! (Comment on this)
Tuesday, February 12th, 2008
11:06 pm	(Comment on this)
Monday, February 11th, 2008
6:06 am	Young TG To Attend School Where She Previously Attended As A Boy Not too much to say on this one, but it is an interesting dilemna: http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=85989 The article suggests that this child is now in 2nd grade, and she (we will use this pronoun in respect for the gender chosen) has been going to a different school for 2 years. This suggests she only attended Kindergarten in the school in question. Having been a person who went to Kindergarten in one school, then left, then came back for Second Grade, I don't think there will be a problem of any of the other children recognizing that this child was a boy before and is now a girl. It really shouldn't even cross their minds. The interview with "Dave M." is rather annoying. He is closed-minded and intolerant. He mentions that his daughter isn't ready to think about transgender yet ... that is fine; who's making her? Seems to me it is he and other parents like him that are forcing the children to react. I doubt at this age they would even recognize this girl is biologically a boy - later on, this could become a problem, of course. Then he stated this little gem: "I just find it ironic that they can dictate the dress style of children to make sure they don't wear inappropriate clothing, but they have no controls in place for someone wearing transgender clothing," said Dave M. Can anyone tell me, just what kind of clothing should be termed as "transgender clothing"? I have seen clothing for boys and clothing for girls, but I have never seen clothing specific for transgenders. Someone please show this to me, because I would like to buy some. PEOPLE are Transgender, Dave, not clothing. Ok, so let's go ahead and attack what he really meant rather than how poorly he said it. What should be termed as wearing clothing of the opposite gender? If a girl comes to school wearing jeans or a shirt that are hand-me-downs from her older brother, is she a cross-dresser? If a boy wears something pink, is he a cross-dresser? When I was a child, I had such a weird size that my mother had to buy some of my clothes in the girls' department (size 6X was a perfect fit, but there was no boy equivalent). I argued and fought and in the end sulked over the whole incident (I had not recognized my TG personality yet), but in the end when I wore those articles of clothing to school, was I cross-dressing? The main thing that concerns me is that we found out through the media. This means one of these so-called "concerned" parents alerted the media to this situation. The only reason someone would do that would be to try and bully and intimidate the family of this TG child. Ok - I guess I DID have a lot to say about it after all. On another note of interest, we notice (after being told about it) that CVBB (Christian View British Baptists) have shut down their blog recently. And, we are still here. Hmmmm.... (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 3rd, 2008
11:28 pm	(1 Comment |Comment on this)
Friday, November 23rd, 2007
2:32 pm	Update On The Debate with the CVBB This will be the only update on this, as I have already made my point (Joshua admitted several times that he has no Scriptural Authority behind his teachings). Joshua made a whole area of his blog just to devote to me ( Click here for it: http://thewayweseeit.wordpress.com/the-ongoing-nappy-developement/ ), said they were waiting for my answers to several things, then he would not publish what I had said. Interesting, but not unexpected. At any rate, I will publish my remarks here, seeing as there were several questions asked by those in his comments section that I wish to answer. November 23, 2007 at 7:18 am Golly, Joshua, I must have REALLY shown you up to make you have a temper tantrum this big. lol And did you devote this whole section of your blog just to lil’ ol’ me? Aww - you shouldn’t have! Well, “Vic” has not answered all day because I, unlike it would seem you, have a real life to live and can’t spend all day in front of a computer screen. You people need to get it together. It was interesting that you said that no, there was no scripture against being AB. We all saw you say that. Then you amended the blog article to say that it was your opinion and not a Biblical stance. NOW suddenly you feel you have Bible grounds. And you say *I* just serve what suits me?? So let’s see what I can make of this muddle you have posted. 1. Is wearing a diaper a desire of the flesh? Certainly. Just like eating and drinking is. Do you like to shave? That’s a desire of the flesh. So is bathing a all for that matter. ANY clothing you choose to wear is a desire of the flesh. But is it an Evil Lust? Nope. 2. Lucas - I do not NEED to wear a diaper. I simply do it because I like to. It’s a recreational hobby - like some might read or watch TV. Oh, but I am sure Joshua here has standards against doing those things too. 3. Izzy, since I regularly preach against homosexuality, Islam, and abortion, one could hardly mistake me for Liberal. I don’t walk around in just my underwear, so why would I in just diapers? That would be offensive. How does whether or not I could adopt a child fit in with - anything? I do not lead a false life. Why would I feel a need to tell anyone what I do every second of the day? Why would I feel a need to tell them what kind of underwear I put on? Do YOU??? I challenge you back, Izzy - next time you feel out a resume, make sure you tell them what kind of underwear you wear. 4. “Even the wish washy leftie methodists have hang ups about TG’s so you have no chance being a nappy wearer” And I care about what they think … why? They are not the judge, and I am not a methodist preacher. I couldn’t care less what a methodist thinks. I care what the Bible says - it is the standard. Specifically the New Testament - not that you know much abut that… 5. As stated, Dawn, I do not need the diaper. I simply choose to wear it, much the same as you choose what panties you are going to wear for the day. Do I think God has made a mistake on my gender?? Not at all - what on earth gave you that idea? I am quite happy with what I am. “Surely diaper wearing is not something God would have you do since you ought to know better.” Know better - why? Can you give me a single solitary scrap of scriptural evidence to back up your condemnation - or is it just your opinion, as Joshua ALREADY admitted - and therefor of no more value than my own opinion? Now, this will be my last response. I, unlike poor old Josh of Alberta, Canada (that is - NOT Great Britain), have a life and responsibilities to attend to and can not be bothered to continue this little charade. I have things that need to get done, and they can’t get done while I sit here and go through this mindless gobbledy-gook that Joshua has apparently devoted his life to. The right car for a Christian? The right cat or dog for a Christian? Saying that the head of the family should monitor bathroom use and do underwear checks? Come on! I started on this whole thing really just to get Joshua to admit that he had no scriptural authority to condemn this lifestyle. He has already done so and everyone has seen it. So, I win. Too bad for you, Joshua. Now rant and rave and make a fool of yourself all you want by wasting your time on trying to spread your hate and using me as a target. I won’t even know you are doing it, and every word you type to try and continue it is just going to make you look like more and more of a fool. Buh bye. As you can see, I have precluded myself from replying any more to his insanity. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 22nd, 2007
2:08 am	The Debate With the "Christian View British Baptists" The other day, someone posted a link on our AB story forum to the blog of a man claiming to be a Pastor from the UK. It seems this pastor was condemning both ABs and TGs: http://thewayweseeit.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/adult-babiessex-in-the-playpen-2/ http://thewayweseeit.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/cross-dressingthe-devil-in-high-heels/ Now, if one were to browse the rest of the blog, you would find much ridiculousness to entertain, if you like to laugh at people like that. However, people are seeing him as a religious authority, and taking his views as the views the Bible contains. I could not stand idly by while the "Pastor" made dogmatic claims and then pointed to God's Word as his standard. And so it started... An Open Letter to the "Pastor": Hello "Pastor" Joshua. I am a pastor as well. Have been one for 12 years now. I am also AB, oh, and what joy for you, I am also a TG (which, by the way, you defined wrong. Transgender is a generic term under which crossdressers also fall. Those who think they are in the wrong bodies are transexuals. I am quite happy in this body God gave me.) Joshua, you know what the differences are between me and you? 1. I follow Jesus command to love and not hate. You, on the other hand, exhibit nothing even close to love, and are filled with hate. 2. I actually use scripture when I point out something that is sinful. You apparently don't. Oh wait - maybe that is because this is not sinful! That's why you've got no scripture to back your little temper tantrums up, isn't it? Jessie, I see where you said it is people like Joshua that made you stop going to church. Bad reason. You don't go to church for the people who are there, you go for yourself and your personal connection to God. You are bound to find lots of hypocrites no matter where you are - in the church or out - and I guarantee you that God has not added Joshua here or people like him to the true church. And yes, Joshua, YOU are a hypocrite. You've got your MOD (that's actually you yourself I am guessing)all over this blog telling people to watch their language and attitude, then you come on telling people, and I quote you, to "pi** off". What's up with that? Joshua, I am wondering. You are a "pastor", which means "shepherd" - where's your church? If you are really shepherding the church, why do you have time to write so often in your hateful little blog? Does your church know about your blog? Do they approve of your hateful attitude? Do you teach them ANYthing the Bible says about love and hate, or do you skip over those parts in the Bible that don't suit you? Finally, a little primer for those who are misinformed because of this lying entry you have here: 1. Not all ABs are "fat slobs". We come in all shapes and sizes. 2. Not all ABs are male. I can attest to this fact with much assurance. 3. Not all ABs do what they do for a sexual kick. Some merely find it relaxing. It's better than drinking or drugs, isn't it? Heck - even better than smoking. 4. AB and Paedophilia are two totally different things and not connected in any way. Paedophiles want to be WITH children - ABs want to BE children. 5. Almost all ABs live normal productive employed lives, and do this in their spare time. If you knew an AB, it would be unlikely that you would know he or she was an AB unless he or she told you so. 6. There are many Christian ABs, and yes, even some pastors. Joshua, just in case you fell you can't handle what I have to say here, and you have no answer, so you decide to delete my entry - know this. This is an open letter to you, which I intend to publish in MANY places, including my own blog. -------------------------------- Joshua wasn't thrilled. In fact, he blocked my comments from being seen. I knew a little needling would get him hot enough under the collar to break and to answer me, so needle I did: So, Joshua, tell me - when are you going to defend yourself against what I said? When are you going to turn to our standard - God’s Word, and PROVE to everyone that this is really a sin? Hmm? Joshua - you are afraid to answer me or to let my posts be seen, You are a disgrace to God if you continue to condemn things that are not in His Word. I know YOU can read this and that is what is important - as well, I will expose it to everyone else on other blogs. If I am wrong and you have some sort of Biblical evidence, prove it. Put up or shut up - debate another pastor who knows as much (maybe more) Bible than you do, rather than pulling the wool over everyone else’s eyes and teaching them to hate. I challenge you in the name of Jesus the Christ, Joshua - are you “man” enough to answer, or will you hide my comments and cower like a “child”? I knew the irony of the last sentence would do it if nothing else did. And apparently, it did. My comments could suddenly be seen, with this from the "moderator" (whom I am convinced is Joshua himself): MOD: 1 Cor was used as a pretty good basis for the idea that wearing a childish item of clothing wasn’t cool. The pastor is not likely to cower from you or anyone quite frankly. Now you can threaten all you like. Have you boned up on lev lately? I think you will find more than enough scripture to show you where you are heading. In Britain presently it is 10:30pm…Do you want me to drag everyone out here so you can feel acknowledged? Where does it say in the Bible that you have a right to harass someone with a differing opinion that yours. Is the blog based on Biblical text? No it isn’t, it is based on someone’s opinion. I think you need to shut your mouth and read a little more around here and see where Pastor Josh has been very kind. He doesn’t like the idea of healthy people needing diapers to get their kicks. He is entitled to feel that way, isn’t he, “pastor” Excellent! Now I had material to debate! Unfortunately, he deleted my last entry. So for those who were following, here is what I said: ------------------------------- >>> "1 Cor was used as a pretty good basis for the idea that wearing a childish item of clothing wasn’t cool." I believe you are alluding to 1 Corinthians 13:11, where it states: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." You are taking that out of context if you are saying that alludes to a childish item of clothing. First, in context, Paul uses this to talk about maturing in the Christian Faith and how there would come a time when the Spiritual Gifts would no longer be used. Second, where does this scripture mention clothing? Third, do you really believe God cares what kind of underwear I choose to wear?? >>> "The pastor is not likely to cower from you or anyone quite frankly." Ah, but the "pastor" has. He posted 3 times and kept my posts hidden every one of those times. Ah, but apparently my challenge worked to get you hot under the collar and reveal my posts - I figured it would, so that's cool. >>> "Have you boned up on lev lately?" Leviticus? The book that tells us not to eat pork, not to wear clothing of two different fabrics, to bind boxes with scripture scrolls on our bodies, and to sacrifice animals in worship to God? Sure - I know it pretty well. Do you do any of those things? Have you boned up on Colossians 2:14, where it tells us the Old Covenant (that'd be Leviticus) is nailed to the cross, Galatians 3 or 5, where it tells us the Old Covenant is passed, or Hebrews, where it tells us how much better the New Covenant is? >>> "I think you will find more than enough scripture to show you where you are heading." Why don't you show it to us, then? A few minutes ago you ammended one of my posts and told me it was just based on a man's opinion, and not on scripture. Now you tell me it is based on scripture. Make up your mind. >>> "Where does it say in the Bible that you have a right to harass someone with a differing opinion that yours." Now there's a dang good question. So, tell me - why have you chosen to harass us? YOU are the one who chose to make this blog article, buddy, not me. I'm just showing people that you are no Bible authority. And, I am charged to do that - if you want, I can show you the scriptures that tell me to defend God's Word and not to add or take away from it. When you say something that God has NEVER condemned is condemned by Him, you are adding to his word. >>> "Is the blog based on Biblical text? No it isn’t, it is based on someone’s opinion." THANK YOU. I think that is all we needed to know. You have no authority to teach people that this is sin. >>> "I think you need to shut your mouth and read a little more around here and see where Pastor Josh has been very kind." Are you for real? I read through here and all I see is the "good pastor" calling people clowns, twits, and various other names, as well as belittling people that do not agree with his opinion, and SWEARING unabashedly at them. Would Joshua use that language in front of Jesus, I wonder? Using words like "bl**dy" and "pi**"? He should be ashamed of himself! And YOU - you say he has been "kind"? Get real! >>> "He doesn’t like the idea of healthy people needing diapers to get their kicks. He is entitled to feel that way, isn’t he, “pastor” Absolutely. It does not, however, entitle him to tell people it is sin, nor to make as though his opinion means anything more than anyone else's. But you've already admitted it is opinion - I win. --------------------------- So there you have it. He has admitted it was opinion. He did, however, delete my last response to him - guess he couldn't deal with the heat. This made me want to look over other parts of the blog to see whether or not he does try to give the impression that this is Biblical, rather than his opinion. Not only did I find proof that he does say that his blog entries are based on the Bible, but I also found a GREAT amount of hypocrisy. Read on... >>>"Dear Christian Friends and internet rabble: There are no “rules” aside from just plain common courtesy." An interesting start, no? He starts out by insulting (either you are a Christian Friend, or you are Internet Rabble to Joshua), and in the very next sentence says that there must be common courtesy. But wait - this gets more fun. >>> "We will let most posts and opinions stand." Well, now we know that this means they will let it stand unless it proves them wrong. I found it interesting that there were over 320 posts before I posted. Once I posted and challenged him to show his Biblical Authority for saying what he has said, and pointed out how he is hypocritical, the thread went only another 25 posts and then he closed it down, after deleting my last response. No swearing, no insulting, no threatening was used in my last response to Joshua, yet he would not "let it stand". All his posts, however, with their non-courtesy, swearing, and threatening, pepper the comments areas after his blog entries. From this one entry alone, he said things like: "filthy spotty bummed evil doers twits fat arses DISGUSTINGLY IMMORAL AND SELF INDULGENT bent gits you freak, you pervert you daft bint Christie you thick daft bint. great fat slob of a person bloody hell take your fat arse off the couch or bed" All that in less than half the page! Or just look at the top of the blog, in the banner. There it says: "We are not Bloody Catholics!" I'm not done yet though. He goes on in his rules page to say: "Mind the language and refrain from attacking members..." Umm - yeah. See above for what Joshua himself says. But here is the meat of what I want to look at. It was admitted that this was opinion, and did not have any authority behind it. yet Joshua infers in many places that he is using Biblical teaching to back himself up. There is no scripture mentioned in his blog entry, though he tried to say there was. I don't know why he later tried to say there was scripture backing him up, when he already admitted to us that this is all opinion. But here are places he infers that this is Bible Based: "Our views primarily come from the Bible and we follow it faithfully." And then look at all the places in the blog entry where he calls it "immoral", "depraved", "sick", "bent", and a "perversion". A person has a right to an opinion that differs from others, but when you begin to condemn people using the name of my God like Joshua has done, you better be ready to show me some evidence that God agrees with you. Otherwise, tell people this is just your opinion - else I will do it for you, and you won't like how I go about it.. So what have we found about Joshua, the "pastor" who likes to put down ABs and TGs? He is: 1. A hypocrite 2. A liar (changed his blog entry and then told people he didn't say what I referred to) 3. Someone who apparently does not know how to speak without using cursing - and then chides others for doing the same. 4. Someone who opines and then condemns people based on his opinion, but then tells them it is Biblical. 5. A coward who will not engage in rational argument with someone who is on the same Biblical Knowledge level as he himself is (IF he is really a pastor, which I doubt). I conclude that he's not worth my time to go and debate the TG issue as well. I already got what we needed to see when he admitted that everything he writes is based only on his own ignorant and intolerant little mindset. (9 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, October 22nd, 2007
2:53 pm	Knuffles the kitten (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 27th, 2007
2:15 pm	More "Witch Burning" Those who look for paedophiles behind every tree and around every corner have now stepped it up a notch, to "educate" people that a child holding her Daddy's hand is an apparent sign of sexual abuse. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=30626 I checked out a little about this "Stop it Now!" campaign and was rather shocked to find out that it doesn't just exist in Hampton Roads, VA (although that's where they have taken what is normally a sign of perfectly normal parental affection and attempted to call it a sign of child abuse). It is in fact all over, including even in my own back yard. I find it very disturbing, because this campaign teaches people that if anything at all doesn't "feel right" to them, they should call authorities and make a perfectly innocent parent's (or uncle's, or whatever) life hell. So, with no evidence WHATsoever, a hysterical nutcase is told to go with her "gut instinct" and turn someone in for.....NOTHING! A few things from the "Stop it Now!" campaign site ( http://www.stopitnow.com/ ) Quote: "If you have any doubt in your mind, then there is no doubt you should speak up." - Advice from a counselor working with people who sexually abuse Any doubt at all in your mind. People make up things in their minds all the time! Quote: Do you notice some of the following behaviors in children you know? * Fear of certain people or places (e.g., a child may not want to be left alone with a baby-sitter, a friend, a relative, or some other child or adult; or a child who is usually talkative and cheery may become quiet and distant when around a certain person). * Nightmares, trouble sleeping, or other extreme fears without an obvious explanation. * Spacing out at odd times, seems distracted or distant, “checked out.” * Stomach illness all of the time with no identifiable reason. * An older child behaving like a younger child, such as bed-wetting or thumb sucking. * New words for private body parts. * Shows resistance to bathing, toileting, or removing clothes even at appropriate situations. * Refusing to talk about a "secret" he/she has with an adult or older child. * Talking about a new older friend. * Has negative self image, i.e. thinks of self or body as repulsive, dirty or bad. (Note: Not all the "warning signs" they list are listed here) Now, I have worked with children before. Many of these are common behaviors. If the child DIDN'T do some of them, he would be abnormal. Quote: Do you know an adult or older child who: * Makes others uncomfortable by ignoring social, emotional or physical boundaries or limits? * Refuses to let a child set any of his or her own limits? Uses teasing or belittling language to keep a child from setting a limit? * Insists on hugging, touching, kissing, tickling, wrestling with or holding a child even when the child does not want this physical contact or attention? * Has secret interactions with teens or children (e.g. games, sharing drugs, alcohol, or sexual material) or spends excessive time to emailing, text messaging or calling children or youth * Insists on or manages to spend uninterrupted time alone with a child? * Seems “too good to be true, i.e. frequently baby sits different children for free; takes children on special outings alone; buys children gifts or gives them money for no apparent reason? * Frequently walks in on children/teens in the bathroom? * Allows children or teens to consistently get away with inappropriate behaviors (Note: Not all behaviors they listed are listed here) A few of these are reason to give any person who loves children pause for concern. If you hug a child, someone might think it is a sign of abuse. If you tickle a child, someone might see it as a sign of abuse. If you talk to a child or even a teenager on IM, or Email them, or Text message them, it can be seen as a sign of child abuse. If you end up spending uninterrupted time alone with a child, it may be a sign of abuse. And God FORBID you actually offer to babysit for free, take the kids on a special outing, or buy them gifts for no apparent reason! It used to be you were innocent until proven guilty in this country. Rightly it has been said by a certain TV Crime Drama, "That's true in every case except child abuse." If you are suspected of abuse, it seems you are automatically deemed guilty until proven 100% innocent beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt. And those things listed above can make you suspected of abuse. If you have a lot of toys in your home, and the police have any reason at all to come into your home and they see those, they are TRAINED to see that as a red flag! They think you might use that to lure children so you can show them your "treasures". That counts for dolls - OR transformers and matchbox cars. Even a large game collection makes them suspicious. The prevailing doctrine seems to be that you should keep your children locked away from all adult interaction. Is it any wonder then, when our children grow up unfriendly and not knowing how to act in social situations? They've never been taught! The only examples they had were whomever they saw on television or read about in magazines! They have no real life normal people heroes. Moreover, if a child has been raised to fear adults, it will translate to them doing the same with their children. Hooray for the culture of fear and suspicion! Hooray for paranoia! Society has brought it upon itself. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, June 14th, 2007
11:28 am	Town Outlaws "Offensive" Clothing I guess LHCMPA (Look How Cute My Panties Are) Girls, and ABs who like to show off their diapers better not go to the Louisiana town mentioned in this article: http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/OPINION01/706140317/1014/OPINION (That particular article is from the Opinions section of a newspaper, but it treats the ordinance more fully than any other free news service I could find.) I was most interested in the wording: "It shall be unlawful for any person in any public place or in view of the public to be found in a state of nudity, or partial nudity, or in dress not becoming to his or her sex, or in any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments, or be guilty of any indecent or lewd behavior." Now, is it just me, or is the wording awfully ambiguous? What, for instance, is "partial nudity"? Can a man without a shirt be called partially nude? What about a woman in a bathing suit (this is a Gulf Coast town) - how much can be shown before she is found in violence of this ordinance? But what really burns me is the part about "not becoming his or her sex". That's unconstitutional, and I'd like to see it challenged as such. In another article (not on a free service), I found this quote: "The clause about "dress not becoming to his or her sex" doesn't forbid cross-dressing, Broussard said. "A dress, I wouldn't find that obscene. As long as he covers himself and it's not too short." If it doesn't forbid cross-dressing, then what the hell does it mean?? Moreover - "as long as it's not too short"... by whose standard? This "law" is absurd as it does not use precise enough language. Apparently even those who wrote it have no idea what it means. Get this quote: "The law applies to women as well as men, the mayor said Wednesday. "If you expose some of your privates, the crack of your behind, if somebody feels insulted they should press charges. If you're offended by it, we want to straighten that out." If somebody feels insulted they should press charges?? Are you kidding me? I feel insulted every time I see a large woman wearing stretch pants - should I press charges? Now, I hate the sagging pants, don't get me wrong. Not only are they absurd looking, but the whole reason they started was because gang members used them to hide their weapons. I think schools should ban them. I think work places should ban them. If someone shows off their private parts, there are already indecent exposure laws that cover that. The language of this ordinance is way too ambiguous and one clause is unconstitutional. The town leaders are using this to get across their own personal opinions and agendas about how people should dress, and it ought not to be allowed. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 29th, 2007
12:50 pm	The Late Reverend Jerry Falwell After the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell, there were a lot of comments on news boards from people who seemed to "froth at the mouth" with hatred for him, and they were happy about his death. These people insisted that Jerry Falwell preached hate. Knowing that I myself have heard some pretty kooky things come out of the mouths of certain TV Evangelists, I decided to investigate this matter a bit. What I found was most disturbing. It seems the only thing anyone is able to point at as to why they so disliked Jerry Falwell is that he openly opposed homosexuality and abortion. When pressed to cite the so-called "hateful" preaching he did, all they have been able to produce are a handful of somewhat recent statements, all pertaining to homosexuality and calling it sinful. I find this interesting, given his career of over 50 years. For a man who preached thousands of times and in front of millions of people, if he preached hate, you'd think there'd be some hateful comments that someone could cite - yet there are no such comments. Is homosexuality sinful? According to the Bible, homosexual acts are. I don't need to use Leviticus to prove it - Leviticus is Old Testament and unless you are a Jew, you don't live under that law. However, a quick look at Romans 1:26-27 will yield some interesting facts. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." So what does it say here? In context it is talking about idol worship. Homosexuality was often done in conjunction with idol worship. However, what does the verse say about ANY such act? It calls it "vile affections", it calls it "unnatural", it says the acts are "unseemly" and it states very clearly that those who do such things are in error. These are God's words on homosexuality. The most damning part of it is that first phrase ... "God gave them up". Jerry Falwell was preaching only what the Bible says, and not in any hateful way. It is wrong to hate a person, no matter what they have done - but it is right to hate sin. Moreover Jerry Falwell preached also that we are ALL guilty of sin and have a need to repent - not just the homosexual. So because Jerry Falwell was a big name that opposed homosexuality, he was targeted. And then a news report came out in 1999 that left most people - Christians included - shaking their heads in wonderment and wondering why Jerry Falwell would criticize a children's Television character by saying he might be a gay symbol. For most people, this was the first time they ever heard the idea that Tinky Winky - a "teletubby" - may be a gay symbol. Much investigative reporting when into it when Jerry Falwell made the suggestion, and he was condemned in many places for it. Interestingly, there are at least three places that said Tinky Winky was gay well before Jerry Falwell made the suggestion. Gay groups had already adopted him. On December 24, 1997, CNN reported the following: "The Teletubbies also have a following among the gay community. Tinky Winky, who carts around a red handbag but speaks with a male voice, has become something of a gay icon." (CNN, 12/24/97) On April 17, 1998, The Village Voice (a gay community publication) praised the Teletubbies series for their gay Tinky Winky character. On January 1, 1999, the Washington Post anointed Tinky Winky as the next year's Ellen DeGeneres (who had previously come "out of the closet" about being gay). When three credit-worthy publications had already insinuated or flat out stated that Tinky Winky was a gay character, why is it that only Jerry Falwell got trounced over it? I would suggest it is because he was the first to OPPOSE it. To wrap up, I find it interesting that these people make hateful comments about Jerry Falwell, and then they try to justify it by saying he preached hate. Most of those who say this never heard Jerry Falwell preach at all, and they are unable to then point to any statement he made that was "hateful" - while it is quite simple to point to the statements that they themselves have made that are very hateful. Since they have made hateful statements that CAN be easily cited, would these same people think that it would be right when they die for Christians to then make hateful comments about them? It is hypocrisy of the highest degree to criticize someone as being hateful if the way you do it is by being hateful yourself... and it is especially so if you personally know of no place in which the individual preached hate - because then it is not just hypocrisy; it is libel or slander. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006
4:07 pm	AB/DL/LG version of Godwin's Law I thought I'd rant a little since I am a bit pissed off. It seems once again that Godwin's Law has reared its ugly head. Have no idea what I am talking about? According to Wikipedia, Godwin's Law was formulated in 1990 by Mike Godwin and referred specifically, at the time, to Usenet groups: " As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." In simple language, when the thread turns into a flame war, eventually one party will compare the other party or their arguments to Hitler or the Nazis. It is commonly accepted that once Godwin's Law is invoked, the party making the analogy has lost. I would say our community also has a form of Godwin's Law. Call it "Little's Interpretation" if you wish. "In AB/DL/LG forums, as the discussion grows longer, the probability of a personal insult involving paedophilia approaches one." It seems as the arguments flare, almost inevitably if it is allowed to continue, one party will become so angry at the other that he will eventually accuse the other of paedophilia, especially where the discussion involves one who is LG and one who is not. It usually involves the accuser making slanderous declarations concerning the interests of the one whom he opposes. This possibly stems from a complete misunderstanding about the community, or it may just be a lack of social skills. In my case, the accusations are made because I have both an AB site and an LG site (in addition to an AB Story Forum, LG Webzine, and this LiveJournal!). The LG site has pictures of real children on it (heaven forbid! Say it isn’t so, Vickie!). It has no sexual content, no sexual discussion, no adult pictures, no erotica. Just things about me and my views. The site is about ME, not about the little girls in the pictures. The pictures I put on the site are there because either I identify with the girl shown, or I like the outfit she is wearing (which is still a level of identification with her). Each picture is a little part of me. What it also has is a link to my AB site. The AB site is more adult, yet it still has no graphic representation of sex. There are pictures of adult women in diapers on the page and obviously the subject is more adult in nature (ironically), but I do not include nudity nor are my AB stories graphic in the least. Since it is adult and it is linked to an LG Site, some have seen fit to think this is good reason to call me a paedophile. By definition, a paedophile is one who would like to have a sexual encounter with a child. LGs, myself included, have absolutely no sexual interest in children. Most would tell you that as LGs, they have no sexual interest at all. They are simply emotionally and spiritually little girls, through and through. We like the same things they like, we play the same things they play, we wear the same things they wear. It is innocent and it is what we are inside. As a little girl in mind, we are obviously not sexually motivated toward any other little girl. You would find LGs to be among the most staunch defenders of children. There are those people who think that if we have such an interest it MUST be sexual. They claim we are fooling ourselves and that we have a sexual hang-up. It would seem to me, if a person insists that something HAS to be sexual and they can see no way in which that activity may NOT be sexual - is it not they who have a sexual hang-up? They have sexualized something to a point where they see no other reason or use for it. Currently I am in the process of defining what I want to do about the proposed separation of my AB and LG sites. I have received several different good ideas and am awaiting a few more before making a final decision on how to proceed. It is sad that we have to do such things, merely because of the closed-mindedness of certain people in communities who should be the most open-minded of all. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, April 3rd, 2006
3:32 pm	Entertainment Industry Fuels The Flames Of Ignorance In addition to news programs such as 60 Minutes propagating ridiculous research about certain groups, the entertainment industry adds their own brand of insanity. ER, in the episode "Dead Again" (Season Nine), portrayed an adult baby who was an extremely gross and overweight man who seemed incapable of any social interaction on an adult level. Unimportant to the plot, he was only on screen for a short time for comedy relief. He had been found crying hysterically in an apartment because his girlfriend (mommy) left him, and acted like a complete idiot in his role, wallowing in his own waste-filled diaper and showing pleasure in this. He was apparently incapable of taking care of himself in any way, and had diaper rash. Psych case? - you better believe it. But don't equate him to us! CSI, in the episode "King Baby (Season Five), had the Adult Baby as their victim, so we don't get to see much acting from him. Again he is an overweight male, but at least this one knows how to be an adult - he owned a casino. Oh, but wait until you hear how he was killed - an LSD-laced enema and then left naked in a driveway. He takes a woman's child so that he can have a woman to breast feed him. They completely whacked out on this episode, showing an "Adult Baby Superstore". They make such wide sweeping assumptions such as "They (ABs) only love their mothers or were never loved by their mothers", and - you'll love this one - they used the term "drinkers and stinkers" to refer to them. Now, I have to tell you, I've been an AB for 18 years, and this is the first time in my life I have EVER heard the term "drinkers and stinkers". This episode not only sensationalized the AB Community, it also potentially caused some ridiculous conclusions about us - we do NOT all like to poop in our diapers, get enemas, give up solid food for milk (my god - just kill me now!), or do ANYthing (including illegal things) to achieve our fetish. (This author, however, still feels the Parents Television Council was out of line in filing against the show. ( http://www.csifiles.com/news/010305_01.shtml ) Of course, no article on this would be complete without mentioning talk shows. Yes, these lovely little gems such as Jerry Springer who do so much for us. What kind of idiot does it take to think he should go on a talk show and lay his private life open for everyone to judge and jeer? What kind of idiot does it take to think that this will in some way BENEFIT the community? The worst part of it is - that's what the talk shows thrive off of - the village idiots. They look for the worst, flaming halfwits they can find and then put them on TV and act like anyone into this must be just like these people. Of course all blame doesn't lie within the entertainment industry. Some of it lies within the public - the people who assume the generalizations are true. The entertainment industry does it to every group, really. How many times do you see a Christian that is not an incredibly dense conservative portrayed on TV? A city teenager who is not either in a gang or hassled by gangs? Any young person who doesn't like rock music? A TG who is not a drag queen or so slathered with make-up that they make even Tammy Faye Baker look good? A child molester who does not look sleazy? Even something fictionalized and sensationalized like demon possession - have you ever seen a movie or TV episode on this in which the Catholic Church didn't play a starring role (think about it - The Amityville Horror movies, The Exorcist movies, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Bless the Child)? At some point the public needs to get a clue that not everyone who does something is the same. I know that Charles Manson likes spaghetti. Charles Manson is a murderer. Does this mean everyone who likes spaghetti is a murderer? (2 Comments |Comment on this)