Times article by Tom Whipple on defoo, FDR and Molyneux

Flanky · Number of posts: 6 Registration date: 2009-01-16

Patience wrote:

What actually happened was that I wrote to the Guardian shortly after Tom left, explaining what had happened and asking if they would write something about cults. The Guardian decided to focus on one particular cult run by Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio.

I didn't approach anyone else, they all contacted me.

I don’t see how is this relevant. If you really wanted an article about cults, you wouldn’t have given them personal information about Tom. There were dozens of things you could do, and you have decided to write to the press. I cannot understand this. Saying that you can’t get Tom back is a self fulfilling prophecy, a well known psychological phenomenon. I am utterly convinced that there were things that you could have done instead of basically revealing all the details about your son.

And remember that even if FDR was a cult, attacking a cult is the worst thing you could do to save someone from it. Moreover I don’t see how an Internet cult could function, a cliquish board… sure, but not a cult.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Once her son was gone, she wanted to warn others so that those parents facing similar situations, with FDR or similar organization could do exactly those things you are "utterly convinced" she could, or should, have done. Some people have a sense of duty to their fellow human beings, or at least a compassionate desire to save others the pain that they have suffered, so they seek to draw attention to their story, as a cautionary tale. This is sadly derided among many individualist libertarians who wrongly believe that the philosophy requires you to care only about yourself.

I think what Barbara has done and is doing is heroic and actually exactly in line with libertarian and An-Cap ideals. She is not initiating force, she is using her right to free speech in the form argument and persuasion in the media to effect the reputation of Stefan Molyneux and FDR, as well as inform other families of the potential for destruction that exists in his "philosophy."

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

I am always annoyed when people say that there can be no online cults. The fact is, cults do not generally operate on the basis of physical coercion. Curious people choose to look into them at first, and there is a process whereby their mind is conditioned to seek out the validation and support of the group, and reject almost any communication from outside the group, but criticism most vehemently. Once that process is undertaken —and it happens via communication, so the internet is certainly an adequate, if not superior medium for it (due to the ease with which Stef can control access to information about himself, when he is seen by his followers, he is always on, carefully edited and presented just so)— there need be no walls.

Aside from Jim Jones' compound, I can think of no example of a cult that keeps its members under armed guard or lock and key. Even $cientologists in the brutal Sea Org have opportunities to walk away, and they generally had to try very hard to get there in the first place. Most of the time, the doors are wide open, but the "undue influence" has been put in place, the prison is built inside the cult members' minds. The option of leaving is closed off to the extent that they have subsumed their identity into that of the group. The guilt and shame and embarrassment they'd have to endure to get out into a world where they have no friends and have alienated their families would be unbearable for all but the most strong-willed person and emotionally stable person, exactly the type who wouldn't wind up in the cult in the first place.

JC Hewitt is a fine example of that. So are Greg G and Nathan. They identify so strongly with FDR that to be rejected by it, or transgress against Stef, would crush their sense of themselves, so it is not even an option. All this happened through online interaction, their identities got completely wrapped up in FDR, regardless of the lack of a meat-space meeting hall. They've done in their lives the things that cultists do, deFOOing friends and family who don't join in, and giving their money to Stef, and recruiting receptive acquaintances, etc.

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Flanky · Number of posts: 6 Registration date: 2009-01-16

Dylboz wrote:

I think what Barbara has done and is doing is heroic and actually exactly in line with libertarian and An-Cap ideals. She is not initiating force, she is using her right to free speech in the form argument and persuasion in the media to effect the reputation of Stefan Molyneux and FDR, as well as inform other families of the potential for destruction that exists in his "philosophy."

Well sure, taking drugs is also not against libertarian ideals but still it is damaging.

By the way have you read Alice Miller or Lloyd DeMuse? Considering how irrational and abusive some parents are, how is it that you call heroic someone who falls into this category? Not parents but irrational and abusive people of course. “My son was taken away from my by a cult, that is why I’m going to offend him, reveal his personal info” etc. A rational and heroic position? Well I’ve got to tell you that I’ve heard of some parents who actually saved their children from destructive cults and none of them used the tactics that Barbara uses. First you save your child, then you can tell your story to warn others. Doing it the other way is very harmful and irrational(first you should go to the North Pole instead of telling the media, how much you would like to go to the North Pole).

Oh and frankly speaking I cannot see how Barbara does anything to support libertarian ideals so I guess it was a far-fetched conclusion. Freedom of association is rather more important than speaking in the media.

That’s actually funny because I think that such books as RTR or On Truth are brilliant, my biggest criticism of Stef is that he doesn’t really follow it in his interactions on the board, on the call-in shows etc(I have more criticisms of Stef but that would be the main one). Moreover he is absolutely right hat we should not interact with evil people. Does that mean ditching all parents? Well not necessarily, for example Conrad said that he improved his relationship with his parents. Stef actually has a lot of valuable things to say, he mixes it with some really jerky tactics and manipulation(I’ve seen some cases) and I find saying that he is all wrong because of one mother who is vindictive* really strange. I mean, do you really find it in line with libertarian ideals to criticize the freedom of association? Would you criticize it?

*to her son, not to Stef.

About the online cult thing, you see whether you are right or wrong, Barbara is doing something very harmful. Either FDR is not a cult: then she is trying to hide her moral corruption behind false accusations, or FDR is a cult: then she is counter-productive in the attempts to save her son. As for the mentioned users of FDR…. I find it sad when I listen to a convo with them and they basically agree with everything that Stef says. It’s like they needed his attention so much, it’s almost painful, so I agree that some people connected with FDR in a very unhealthy way. In my opinion it’s Stef negligence that he hasn’t dealt with this.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

I have read a lot of Alice Miller, and while I agree with much of what she says, I also think that she is advancing a sort of neo-victorian idealization of children at the expense of their parents' humanity. Lloyd DeMuse is a nut-bag and psychohistory is a recapitulation of Fruedianism.

Furthermore, I don't understand why you simply assume Barbara "falls into that category," unless you, like Mr. Molyneux, believe that the category is "parent" and all it's members are de facto abusers. Again, Tom is not here to tell us anything, and all you have to base that opinion on is the Molyneux interpretation, which is demonstrably inaccurate.

I do not criticize freedom of association at all, but I also do not criticize those who also avail themselves of freedom of speech, and one need not be a libertarian or advance the cause of liberty to earn those rights, as far as I'm concerned.

I think that if a parent values their relationship with their child, they would probably like to know what their child's association with Stef and FDR might portend for that relationship. I believe she is doing those parents a service.

Again, I don't really know how many times she has to say it herself...

Patience wrote:

I can't get Tom back but perhaps it would prevent another young person's mind being poisoned by false ideas or another family losing their precious child.

...or I have to repeat it. She is not trying to "get her son back." She has accepted the loss, and does not expect to see him again any time soon. What she is doing is trying to prevent other parents from experiencing the same loss and damage that happened to her family (she has lost her marriage, too). To do that, you have to tell the media what happened, to whom, when and how.

It is a warning to others, a cautionary tale, not an overture to her son. Why does everyone at FDR exhibit these false and infantilizing peons to Tom's "feelings" when they do not even really know him? Because it is an opportunity to reinforce the Molyneux judgement you repeated about Barbara's "moral corruption."

If Tom is a fully responsible grownup, and it's totally OK for him to hurt his parents' feelings by rejecting them in pursuit of his own happiness and self determination, why then can they not just as freely tell their story without concern for his feelings? Why do they have to be deferent to him when he has rejected them and shown no further concern for them? This is a double standard. Or, Tom is still a child who needs protection and shielding from the very parents he rejected, and therefore not actually an adult. You can't have it both ways.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Conrad

Flanky wrote:

After looking for some time at the FDR section of liberating minds I would like to share some of my thoughts, please correct me if I’m wrong.

Sup Flanky

Quote:

I’m rather astonished at the disparity in the way that some users treat Tom and Mrs. Barbara Weed. The amount of sympathy and kindness shown to Mrs. Weed is completely incomparable to the sympathy shown to Tom, simply because I haven’t found any example of it. It is quite astonishing to me, since Tom has made a decision and now shows astounding levels of independence, yet he is presented as somebody who cannot think for himself. And even if he is a victim of a cult, than still he is the one who needs more compassion than his parents.

I think what Stewart said about the simple factor of Tom's not being on LM as a reason for more sympathy expressed toward Barbara is a good point. (of course it is not at all the whole story) I also think that a lot of people here have said that it was wrong of Tom's father to do the things he did and for Barbara to not intervene (e.g. by going to a family therapist) and that this must have been bad experiences for the young Tom. At the same time I do think there is a decent chance that Tom, under the influence of FDR, has had his perception of these events changed to some extent, now thinking they were much worse than what he thought before. Stef's calling Tom's father 'the devil' and Stef's saying that Barbara created Tom for the devil, his saying Tom grew up in a hugging Gulag, etc.

Barbara and Tom's father say that Tom's claims are exaggerated. I don't know who is right.

Moreover, I think quite a few people on LM have expressed their admiration/appreciation for Tom, who certainly seems to have his mind and life together much much better than most hardcore FDR'ers: he seems quite happy, chipper and very very intelligent.

Quote:

Another quite surprising aspect of this situation are Mrs. Weed’s actions. Calling the press, three different newspapers, Sky News, BBC etc basically to offend Tom, slander him and reveal his identity. Correct me if I’m wrong but I cannot see that as an expression of love. And if she doesn’t love her son, why the posture? Why bothering whether there were 20 or more DeFOO’s? How many techniques are being used by Stef? Which newspaper posted what? I mean who cares about such inconsequential things when her son told her that he doesn’t love her? I’m not going to speculate about Mrs. Weed’s motivation in those actions, I’m basically shocked by this. And quite frankly we don’t know what’s going on with Tom, whether he is under Stef’s influence or not, we have to little evidence of it, yet Mrs. Weed is the only one who libels Tom with such allegations.

I kinda agree and kinda disagree. I don't think Barbara has libeled Tom, and she has repeatedly said that Tom is very smart etc. But yeah, saying Tom has fallen under the influence of Stef in itself says something about Tom that one can see as belittling/insulting. i don't know, perhaps the better question is whether it is true or not, and I am inclined to think that at least to some extent it is.

Finally, I do think and have said that Barbara's using Tom's photo was wrong. In the first article it just had Tom's first name (and a last name that was not Tom's) and some biographical data, but on the basis of that alone nobody who didn't know Tom already could recognize him from that. So it's basically similar to Barbara's telling her friends and family about what had happened with Tom and her. But then if a photo gets published, that changes things altogether and I think that was wrong and invasive. And if I were Tom I might feel quite anxious about people possibly recognizing him in the street and instantly knowing (part of) his story

Quote:

Btw I wonder why in “voluntary donations” Mrs. Weed has to use quotation marks? Does FDR force anyone to pay like, for example, the government? To my knowledge, no.

I agree.

I would mention that Tom had donated more than $500 to Stef (while, if I understand correctly) still a high school student. Now those donations were voluntary, but they still seem strangely high, and I am not excluding unhealthy influence of Stef in this respect.

Quote:

To make sure that my position is clear:

1 I do not consider FDR to be a cult. It’s cliquish, that’s true, perhaps even more cliquish than other discussion forums that I’ve engaged in. I can see that some users refer to Stef as a father figure and he doesn’t do much about it.

good point. I do think FDR is more than a clique and basically agree with a lot of what Dylboz wrote in his posts.

Quote:

2 I have never posted anything in the FDR message board nor do I contact any of it’s members, apart from some libertarians who visited it. Once I have entered the FDR chat to discuss libertarian ideals in teaching, no family matters whatsoever.

do that long enough and the family matters will come up.... ;-)

Quote:

3 I have criticized Stef on his youtube videos, for example under the “Zeigeist: Addendum Review”. There are also other issues that I don’t like about his behaviour or the things he says.

4 After seeing Conrad’s posts I can fully subscribe to the view that Stefs accusations where ridiculous and insulting. Among the user posts that I have read, his are probably(again I could be wrong) the most balanced calm and very intelligent.

Ha! You hear that you Peruvian pig-farmers you?! Mine are the most calm, balanced and intelligent! In your fig-flossing faces!

Quote:

5 I’m a libertarian agorist, and I don’t hold any grudge against the liberating minds site, it has some good links, I’ve also seen some interesting discussions her(about philosophy, ethics, psychology, science etc.). So I don’t have anything against this site or it’s users in any ideological manner.

cool

Quote:

There is no “search” feature on the forum

there is in the 'Portal' page, though it's kind of crappy.

Quote:

so I could be missing some information, known to the regular users, that would contradict what I have written. If you could show me such information, I shall immediately withdraw from my statements above.

Okay, your post got me thinking about what Barbara said about doing what she does to warn other parents. I think that in itself is a good and useful goal, but after your post I started thinking what this in practice would entail. At this point the articles seem to focus on the cult-aspects of FDR and so the temptation for parents when they find out their child is listening to Stef/FDR is to understand it as their child having fallen prey to a cult-like organization, and thereby to dismiss the child's possible (and likely) real concerns. What I missed in the articles (and I didnt realize this until now) was actual advice for parents what to do. That would be the truly helpful part. So for example 'Listen to your child's concerns. Don't start defending (not right away anyway), but just listen. Be open and take his concerns seriously even when you are inclined to (strongly) disagree with what he says. Be willing to (jointly) talk to a therapist about the situation. Doing this will likely only improve your relationship and communication and even your understanding of yourself, and it is the best thing you can do not to lose your child and to come closer together instead.

There are quite a few very valuable ideas about relationships, family and parenting in what Stef says (one of the probems, as you also indicated, is Stef's hypocrisy in this respect, not necessarily (some of) the ideas themselves) and these can be used to improve relationships. So I think that if the goal is to help other parents, it would be helpful if these things came into focus in the articles. if the parents are open and willing re this (and I can fully understand that at first this is a very alienating thought. See e.g. Barbara's response to Tom's wanting to talk about the family situation. But this is exactly where this type of advice to parents can play a very valuable role: that these things, as alien they may at first be, will likely only be of help.

lordmetroid · Number of posts: 212 Registration date: 2007-08-18

Meanwhile I am a huge fan of Free Talk Live and listens to their podcast everyday, the complete show ever since I became a libertarian in 2006. 3 years!!! So far I have bought 10 dollars worth of perks being an Amplifier.

I find this to be a reasonable sum, I get less commercials then I would get even through the podcast from the amplifier edition podcasts, a special only for amplifier telephone line to call use, access to classical shows, being a beta tester of whatever new and shiny toy Ian Bernard, access to the Amplifier BBS section and videocast forum and other special perks that is given out from now and then.

Well worth three dollars in my opinion and no one pushed anything on to me.

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

And Ian doesn't call you names if you don't AMP. I stopped listening a few years ago, but to the best of my knowledge he's never had a conversation with someone about why they aren't AMPing. He doesn't harp on AMPing as a moral duty, something owed for the product he delivers. Ian doesn't say you're not dedicated to freedom if you don't AMP. In short, Ian doesn't use "moral coercion" (a stretch of the word coercion, there's probably a better way to say it) to get people to AMP. It's more like Bob Barker asking you to spade and neuter your pet than it is the church telling you to give them 10% of your income. Both are voluntary, but the church threatens you with hell if you don't. Likewise, Stef threatens ostracism from a meaningful community as well as the heavy moral argument, but Ian just asks nicely for 15 seconds an hour and then goes about his business.

Stewart · Number of posts: 1186 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-03

Deep Purple wrote:

The church threatens you with hell if you don't [donate]

I am no friend of religion, but obviously-hyperbolic statements like this make atheism look bad.

eye2i2

Deep Purple wrote:

And Ian doesn't call you names if you don't AMP. I stopped listening a few years ago, but to the best of my knowledge he's never had a conversation with someone about why they aren't AMPing. He doesn't harp on AMPing as a moral duty, something owed for the product he delivers. Ian doesn't say you're not dedicated to freedom if you don't AMP. In short, Ian doesn't use "moral coercion" (a stretch of the word coercion, there's probably a better way to say it) to get people to AMP. It's more like Bob Barker asking you to spade and neuter your pet than it is the church telling you to give them 10% of your income. Both are voluntary, but the church threatens you with hell if you don't. Likewise, Stef threatens ostracism from a meaningful community as well as the heavy moral argument, but Ian just asks nicely for 15 seconds an hour and then goes about his business.

This isn't quite fair IMO. While Ian doesn't do such, he does bombard (yes, bombard* =IMO) one with (repetitive) ads-- which he's not giving away either, seeing as how then it's actually (as I understand it) more Mark, 'behind the scenes', that's doing the money take (ie ad calls/sales that keep Ian from having to do any ~~"harping"~~ necessary appeals). On the bombardment aspect, I think I'd actually prefer the occasional appeal for donations to such (or as the 'public broadcasting' networks do, at least restrict it all to one day, a day I can avoid it).
What form of approach Ian would take (eg "moral") if there weren't the ad revenues, I wouldn't/couldn't say of course.

FWIW, on Stewart's perspective regarding the church comment giving atheism a bad name, I don't see that. The comment might be a bit hyperbole or presumptive/too inclusive, but it has it's validity/relevance IMO --perhaps a bit relative to one's exposure/geographical location.

*[so much so, that if it weren't for the command script I set up that let's me with a click of the mouse, mute my sound for 3.5 minutes, I couldn't listen to FTL as much as I do --which still isn't that much (primarily because of the whining and bickering)]

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Stewart wrote:

Deep Purple wrote:

The church threatens you with hell if you don't [donate]

I am no friend of religion, but obviously-hyperbolic statements like this make atheism look bad.

Hey man! With out hyperbole, where would I be? Whut would give my life meaning and stuff, specially since there ain't no godz and such. Leave me SOMETHING, alright? I don't wanna be just hung out here in reality. That would really, like... SUCK!

- NonE lol!

eye2i2

eye2i2 wrote:

~~FWIW, on Stewart's perspective regarding the church comment giving atheism a bad name, I don't see that.~~

To quote my ole bud mahn, NonE: Hmpf! drunken

What the heck wuz eye doin' commenting on "atheism" when it's a frivolous word to start with...?!? I mean, if nuttin' else one might make some sense in being concerned with giving agodists a bad name?!
So to my take on Sam Harris' perspective I'll return; I'm no atheist but rather a realist (alternate: empiricist). To say I'm an atheist is akin to saying I'm an aunicornist, aleprechaunist, or aSantaist; akin to a non+sense. Why give the foolishness any credibility in trying to renounce it by embracing it in a label? Wink

[or as Mr. Harris paralleled, would saying oneself is an "aracist" make any sense-- point being, racism is delusional on it's face]

Flanky · Number of posts: 6 Registration date: 2009-01-16

All right some quick responses, hope the are satisfactory:

Dylboz: Name calling is not a valid way of presenting ideas, either present them or don’t, if you intend to do so in such a manner.

Quote:

Furthermore, I don't understand why you simply assume Barbara "falls into that category," unless you, like Mr. Molyneux, believe that the category is "parent" and all it's members are de facto abusers. Again, Tom is not here to tell us anything, and all you have to base that opinion on is the Molyneux interpretation, which is demonstrably inaccurate.

I certainly don’t equate being a parent to being corrupt. I have stated that Tom is not here to tell us his story so we have little credible information about the events in the past. Furthermore there would probably be some partisanship in his story so again, having no recording we have no objective evidence. Therefore I judge Barbara only through her actions in the present, actions of which I have direct evidence of.

Quote:

.or I have to repeat it. She is not trying to "get her son back." She has accepted the loss, and does not expect to see him again any time soon. What she is doing is trying to prevent other parents from experiencing the same loss and damage that happened to her family (she has lost her marriage, too). To do that, you have to tell the media what happened, to whom, when and how.

And that is what I find astounding. Again I refuse to call FDR a cult since there is no evidence of it being a genuine cult(I have expressed my criticisms of Stef and some devoted FDR members in regards to emotional manipulation so I’m not going to repeat it over and over again). However let’s say that my girlfriend went to an open-air painting convention(she’s an artist) in order to improve her drawing and painting skills. It turned out that the organization behind the convention is a cult that convinces everyone to drop their relationships and donate their work and money to the cult. Would you say that I genuinely loved her if I would simply “accept the loss” and only went to the press to tell my story? Because I love her, I would move haven and earth to save her from that destructive situation. In that situation- screw other parents/boyfriends/cult victims etc frankly. That is why I do not understand her actions and I do not accept them as heroic or even remotely decent.

Quote:

This is a double standard. Or, Tom is still a child who needs protection and shielding from the very parents he rejected, and therefore not actually an adult. You can't have it both ways.

Well sure, there is just one thing. Tom says that he has no positive feeling towards his family while Barbara declares love for him.

Conrad:

I have already addressed the points about sympathy towards Tom so I’ll just confirm that I see the point Smile

.

Quote:

I would mention that Tom had donated more than $500 to Stef (while, if I understand correctly) still a high school student. Now those donations were voluntary, but they still seem strangely high, and I am not excluding unhealthy influence of Stef in this respect.

I didn’t know that, and if it’s true, then I would agree, that is a large sum of money for that age and might indicate an unhealthy relationship. However, that would be jumping to a conclusion.

Quote:

do that long enough and the family matters will come up.... ;-)

Well, honestly I’m not really interested into engaging into FDR boards or discussions. I have some real and very important relationships here, so I want those relationships to be happy and meaningful, not the “6000 km away” ones.

Quote:

Ha! You hear that you Peruvian pig-farmers you?! Mine are the most calm, balanced and intelligent! In your fig-flossing faces!

Was I to swift in my conclusions? Wink

But in all seriousness, I just wanted to point out that Stef’s accusations were unjust, from what I have seen.

BTW I've seen himaccusing this community of stalking and abusive language. If that were the case my opinion would alter quite signifficantly but I saw no proof of that.

Quote:

What I missed in the articles (and I didnt realize this until now) was actual advice for parents what to do. That would be the truly helpful part. So for example 'Listen to your child's concerns. Don't start defending (not right away anyway), but just listen. Be open and take his concerns seriously even when you are inclined to (strongly) disagree with what he says. Be willing to (jointly) talk to a therapist about the situation. Doing this will likely only improve your relationship and communication and even your understanding of yourself, and it is the best thing you can do not to lose your child and to come closer together instead.

I couldn’t agree more.

Quote:

There are quite a few very valuable ideas about relationships, family and parenting in what Stef says (one of the probems, as you also indicated, is Stef's hypocrisy in this respect, not necessarily (some of) the ideas themselves) and these can be used to improve relationships.

Yeah, that is why I don’t want to judge both FDR and LiMi. Stef has some great ideas about relationships and those ideas helped me a lot to improve mine. For example my girlfriend confirmed that our relationship has improved enormously thanks to some of the principles and advice he gives. On the other hand, I think that some people here have some valid criticisms about Stef’s methods, about his methods of debating, and the devotion of some of the FDR members. What I dislike is the label “cult” which in my opinion is meant only to offend instead of work out the issues, and the sort of praise for DeFOO parents, since there are a lot of parents who really deserved this(again with all understanding that it is not universal here). And remember that I would consider DeFOOing from good parents, to be wrong(it’s true that a good person likes the company of other good people).

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Uh... are you referring to my use of the term "nut-bag" in reference to DeMuse? If so, I think YOU are a nut-bag. Jeebus Jiminey Christmas!

Your girlfriend example is... incomplete, since you fail to take into account what you might do if after attempting to move "heaven and earth" to "save" her, you reach your girlfriend and she says "hey, eat a dick, douche-bag! I want nothing to do with you now that I found TRUTH and BEAUTY here!" What might you feel? How would you react? Are you going to keep it up, the earth and heaven movin', or are you going to tell your friends "hey, if you wanna keep yer lady friend around, do whatever you can not to let her go to that goddamn paintin' class!" Maybe a blog post? Is a phone call to the local paper out of the question?

PS - You have NO earthly idea who deserves exactly what, either. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are relying on hearsay at BEST. At least the parents we talk to here are speaking for themselves, not letting Mr. Molyneux do it for them.

PSS - With whom am I obligated to "work out issues?"

PSS - No evidence? OK, no evidence you accept. Fine. If you refuse to accept the evidence, then I guess that bears do not shit in the woods, either. Definitional arguments are semantic traps. I'm not into it.

PSSS - If you intend to stay around here and talk to me, get used to me being who I am, and don't presume to lecture me, you impudent prick. I'll be as abrasive or insulting or friendly or cuddly as I want to be until Conrad deletes my account, Holy Moly style. Cheers!

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

Man, I hope that was taken in the spirit I intended... I was both irritated and amused... Oh well!

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia