This may be funny in a black humor sort of way but it is not laughable to me.
Using a goat or any other animal pet is sick, and we are getting sicker because of such ignorant, arrogant practices such as the business of pethood. We are blacker than the blackest of goats. This intended joke on Obama is an indictment of our addicted sickness of soul.
I’m not advocating people give up the pets they have but only take a long, hard look at what is happening to us as pet lovers. I’m saying for our future survival as a species, do not take on more pets.
We are feeding the very system of master-slave relations that we claim to detest. We are caught in self-contradictory vice that is crushing us. Animals do not need to be saved but to be liberated back their once free and wild state which we have stolen from them.
We slaughter billions of animals to eat and millions of pets to enslave, thinking we are freeing them from death, while shelters and other businesses go on killing those who don’t make the cut; and killing other animals to feed the lucky petted ones.
And we think we will not be eaten and killed by the just forces of tough love? “What fools these mortals be.”
It’s a Gordian Knot I admit. I’m just suggesting that we think about what the hell we’re doing because pethood is an engine of hell, wrapped up in the false flag love.
This is not a rant. It is a chant for freedom, only a opening note of the requiem in pace for animals that I love. Pets cannot tell the truth to their slave owners or they would be killed or abandoned. But they tell the truth to me. I suffer with them as I run with the wolves and other still free creatures of the diminishing wild.
Thank you for bringing this matter up. It is a matter of life or death for the planet and therefore for vineyards.
Dennis, please don’t take this as an attack on you. It isn’t. It is a question that I think maybe you can use for some self understanding.
You have portrayed yourself on these pages quite vividly. You have portrayed a poet, but a lost and sometimes despairing poet.
You have told of trying to be a monastic priest – and failing.
You mentioned failure in relationships, lack of any self esteem because of of “a string of one night sexual stands.”
And other such indications of a lost soul.
So, I just want to ask you something. What makes you believe you are an appropriate person to tell others what to do with their lives?.
You say “do not have pets” purely based on your personal feelings, your imaginings of an over romanticised “wild free life”.
Have you ever investigated the unbelievable misery many “wild” animals live their lives in? Do you know of the multitude of parasites, worms, disease, they suffer from – with no hope of help?.
The thing is I feel truly rather sad for you.
I was questioning, as I often have, during one of my deeper meditations, the deep love I have felt for my animal companions, and the utter grief at their passing. And as I visualised “where does that lovely soul go”, I suddenly saw, very clearly, that much of their soul I had given them through my love – was my own soul. That is why I never quite felt they had “gone”. They haven’t, the part of their soul which I gave them, and which grew and learned in that phase, had returned to me, and is with me always.
And I suddenly understood the truth of that expression.
And then I clearly saw that we, too, are an expression of the love of life that the life force has. It takes the same delight and joy in us that those of us that love take in that love and the loved ones. We are in some ways an expression of lifes’ joy in itself.
My feeling is, for those who feel this desire to share the soul with an animal; one maybe, as some of mine have been, a lovely, wet, hungry, shivering creature, who just turned up at my home for help and never left, even though they were never restrained – that they should do it. They should share their soul with this animal, and understand that joy in another; when, one day, a once lost cat, or dog or whoever snuggles into your arms, and with your hug, turns and gives you a quick lick on the nose and you smile into a face gazing at you with gratitude and trust and love, and you know that here is a bond of joy and love that you will honour until it’s expression changes.
Interestingly, I have found through my life, that people I instinctively like, “gel” with, also love animals and share the ups and downs of life with them.
Thanks for your reply which I think is representative of the thoughts and feelings of most persons here.
I do not take your sharing as an attack at all. Quite the opposite. It seems to me an expression of your love. You desire to increase my self-understanding which you already have by your words so far.
In replying to your reply, I will attempt to adhere to your suggestion of “understanding” rather than any kind of “attack.” You, or others, may interpret my sharing as an attack but then we enter into epistemology, hermeneutics and phenomenology; and philosophy and theology, which will take us too far afield.
Rather, with your kind permission, allow me to parse your words with as much love as I can muster. This might turn lengthy so I may continue this discussion on the new cafe when it appears. I will be selective at first and if fitting, go back over the whole context of your sharing. My intention is to have a conversation with you and others, as if we were in a flesh and blood real cafe. Ironically, this conversation is occasioned by an article on war and within the goal of “stop the empire’s war on Russia.” I say ironically, because I am contextualizing it as love, if not sex, instead of war.
“What makes you believe you are an appropriate person to tell others what to do with their lives?”
A pertinent question. Pertinent to the premise of love I am beginning with.
I believe I am appropriate, first of all, by a negative approach. No one else is broaching this subject. This is a curious negation since pethood is such a universal phenomenon in our culture.
My opinion is that pethood is pertinent to stopping war because it falls within the slave-master phenomenon. You have a different opinion. But is not sharing varying opinions part of love and allowed on this site?
“Telling others what to do with their lives” is not exactly what I am doing. That is your interpretation of my saying: “do not take on more pets.” I am rather suggesting that having pets is connected to making war. People’s lives is a broader concept than having pets. Pethood is one aspect of people’s lives, which as I’ve said, is connected to the subject of stopping war.
“You say ‘do not have pets’ purely based on your personal feelings, your imaginings of an over romanticized ‘wild free life.'”
If I given the impression of basing my sharings purely on my personal feelings, I must correct that notion here. Yes, it is partly based on my feelings but not principally. If you parse my sharings carefully you will find the underlying logic involved.
Pets arrived on the scene about 20,000 years ago with the domestication of animals; or so I read the current science. Before that, scientifically anyway, animals lived a “wild free life.” Well, not exactly because our human species began killing them in earnest for meat and sport about 75,000 years ago, by my scientific and intuitive reasoning. If we go further into the hominids, we are in a pre-human situation. As for the contention that free animals’ lives were brutal, short and nasty, that smacks of patriarchy relative to humans; and, I will address that later.
One of the impulses of domestication of animals was the ease of killing and eating over the dis-ease of hunting, although hunting was an integral part of patriarchy. Another impulse was that of a master, another aspect of patriarchy. Pets provide many patriarchal advantages such as romanticism.
As we fell further away from a love culture into a killing culture, pets filled the vacuum created by the loss of love. Love cannot be controlled but pets can, and thus a compensated security is sought.
You may dispute this and wish to offer counter-arguments. Please excuse me for not addressing as yet your more detailed sharings toward the middle to end of your post. I would rather wait with that until the next cafe opens because this kind of conversation is quite off topic here and is more appropriate for the cafe.
Also, I wish to give you or others time and opportunity to respond to the conversation so far. No sense in my going much further if no one is here to listen. Except that I want to leave a record for those who might be interested later.
Thanks again. I appreciate your concern for animals and your obvious love for them. I respect that even though I think it is misplaced. Given what I have said so far, you may choose not to discuss the matter further. That is fine with me, and accords with the rules here, as far as I understand them.
I appreciate what you have done so far. I will take up the issue of pets more thoroughly in the third division of the love army fantasy I am developing at the cafes. I also discuss pets at thelovegovernment.com.
I love animals, wild and free animals for their self-sovereignty and pets for their dogged persistence in putting up with our inhumane humanity.
Dennis,
As you say, this is probably more suited to the cafe, so I will add here only that
‘[1] It is important not to conflate love animals and of sharing life with them and
[2] using and abusing them.
I do not eat animals – haven’t for years – I dislike all forms of hunting, animal farming and slaughtering and abuse.
It’s like having a child. Children have been taken as slaves, sexually abused, murdered.
That doesn’t mean we dont also have children we love, care for, raise and give our lives to, and for, in their defence.
I suspect you may be conflating here. But I leave it until it gets raised in a future cafe thread.
For the original version in Russian, see https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=картинки кошка рядом с человеком%3A помощник%2C врач и психолог&stype=image&lr=103347&noreask=1&source=wiz
(these ones I use as the screen background on all my computer monitors; just the very sight of them gives me deep inner peace).
Sergey,
Thank you for your response to me , but for those lovely links a special thanks. I ahve saved the “cat” page for future use. How anyone can look at some of those and not see the equal love between sentient entities I dont’ know.
I have a cat just like the ginger one there, too.
Thanks again Sergey.
Bull horns raging. A raging bull’s horny penis. Patriarchy in black spades. A quagmire of mired ire. A cult culture of hate upon hate.
Always in the background the nuclear powers trump. The Oppenheimer atomic bomb blast: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” from the Vedas to the Vineyards. The military iron balloon expands to the breaking point while Russia continues the Chamberlain dance before the new iron curtain.
I’ve done what I could. I put out the call. I received the answer in the cacophony of cross talk voices that parted the temple’s veil with “I love you.” The army of love is coming across the fields of time and space like a saker to her vineyard.
“It ain’t me, babe, it ain’t me you’re looking for, babe.” It’s her.
Her men are up in arms. They’ve left the cushioned bed of roses for the thorns of war. The wheat is about to be winnowed from the chaff, the jokes from the joys and the men from the boys.
I’m going to have a front row seat to the greatest game going at the high noon shootout at the OK Corral. Why? Because I’m the game ball just reporting what I feel, hear and see from my middle of the action view.
It’s not going to be pleasant but I serve a purpose. I fill a place. I intend not to disgrace, despite my falling from grace. You are where the action is. I’m but a reaction to you. You brought me in. Now I’m you from within, your next of kin. Kick me out if you will but I’m the same you still.
I don’t know anything at all except that I’m the ball in the ball dance of love, the bull’s horn of push come to shove, from below to above.
Enough talk. An army is on the march. The time is short. The end is near but uncertain. The die has been cast. The Rubicon crossed. Pull the curtain. Let the game begin and the best man/womam win.
Could you _please_ leave us alone. You keep talking, but it has neither head nor tail, nor an end apparently. But the main thing is, if you are unhappy, you don’t have to spoil everyone else’s joy here.
Anonymous at 12:29 am, I caution toleration. I think it was in January, when I was also Anonymous, I wrote a less polite request of Dennis of him than you just did. Sometimes his dots connect real well, sometimes they don’t. It’s a bit of a crap shoot and he often plays fast and furious and a bit too loose, But so what? It might loosen up a wound up too tight top or two! Fundamentally he seems to care as much or more than many. His moods are not always dark, they vary all over the place. They can be quite cheery.
Dennis came back more tentative, then, in January, asking if I was “brother or sister” Anonymous, with some kind of number play in a post of only 4-5 lines. I was half kidding, but I replied that his numbers were giving me a headache, and I think he disappeared for a good 2-4 weeks or more.
My one tongue in cheek complaint was outweighed by messages of affection and support by several friends of his around the world that he’s never met, but he may have missed them because of a hurt reaction to my rough chiding.
More than a few of us might benefit from a sober minded, balanced editor, but alas, there is none on staff, and the community seems to do that itself, reasonably well. A number of less than fortunate rough drafts may see the light of day that way, but no one is forced to read anything, are they? If you ignore his posts, his posts will leave you alone
I think or hope that there are very few visitors here that ought to be given up on or shooed away. Dennis actually reads critiques and thinks and if you have constructive guidance, he’s smart enough not to pee on it, unlike some. You can tell by his reference to such ideas later on. The ones that he gets from Saker, experts or other visitors here are received by him, and mulled over to varying degrees, and for every person he irritates (that speaks up) there are 2-3 times as many, I would estimate, that want to read what he writes and will defend him. So until the Saker dis-invite (I think I have only witnessed 3-4 of those by the proprietor here…) which I kind of doubt unless Dennis truly goes off the deep end, a mixture of toleration, looking elsewhere to the many other posts that might otherwise go unread, or even (those that know him will comprehend this, you may not…) appreciate some of the thoughts and feelings that he is fairly regularly capable of.
I have something to say to him in the cafe that’s about to close. I’m certainly not a fan of everything he says. I’m not for him staying completely the same, because I’m not for stasis in myself either, or anyone else for that matter.
It won’t be adulatory (that’s not me!) but I hope it won’t be mean either, nor taken that way. Take care.
Bro Anon, what to say… when everything equates to sex… an ex catholic priest… we have just had a Royal Commission into child abuse here in oz.
Sex is a part of life like eating and drinking but equating sex to geopolitics, Orthodox easter, and any other subject that comes up here?
Thank you sincerely also. But your presumption “in advance” is not accurate.
I intend to continue advancing here, unless the moderators or Saker halt my advance. If so, I will retire gracefully from the field and find another vineyard to continue my advance.
To me he sounds like a typical American holdover from a hippie generation, note his uncultured language, a general incoherence, a perverted obsession with aspects of male anatomy (with a “hint” of homosexual tendencies), his exposing to public viewing of his dirty laundry in his “searching for true religion”, etc., quite a familiar picture. Just ignore him, put your own “filter” in place, no reason to lose sleep over it.
In this show he jumped in way too much especially cutting off his Russian guest, whose
Englislh is slightly halting. I wanted to hear all of what he had to say and I thought it was was quite rude and counterproductive (because we didn’t hear all of Timofief’s ideas) for Peter to keep cutting him off. Sometimes it seems like Peter cuts of a speaker as soon as he has gotten out of the speaker a little nugget of some kind that Peter can riff on.
That is rather stupid becuase Peter cannot predict what else a person might have said. When guests are eing stupid and long-winded it is good to pull the plug. But not when they have not had a chance to develop their thought, also speaking in a foreign language.
The show’s format is too short, but still, Peter often comes across as smart-alecky with his constant interrupting. He needs to show more forebearance and patience. Peter rarely to never cuts off Alexander Mercouris. Which is fine, I love what AM has to say. But I also sure want to hear what the head of the Valdai Conference has to say.
Katherine
Sorry to all of you, here is something to laugh.
The New York Post:
A Russian zoo took an incredibly offensive jab at the Leader of the Free World, naming its new black goat “Obama.”
Very strange, the New York Times does not stand up for rights of animals and doesn’t ask the question – Why does a zoo in Vladivostok offends a goat?
http://nypost.com/2016/05/16/russian-zoo-names-black-goat-obama/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYPO0hdklOE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzHZKSH6vJI
Says they were driving “Obama” to the airport to catch a direct flight to meet “Merkel”:) Can you imagine how she looks like:? :) :) :)
As for insulting the goat … we should all immediately sign petition at: http://www.worldanimalprotection.org/
P.S. I see the dictionary gives two Russian meanings for “goat”: one is goat … and another an asshole ;)
This may be funny in a black humor sort of way but it is not laughable to me.
Using a goat or any other animal pet is sick, and we are getting sicker because of such ignorant, arrogant practices such as the business of pethood. We are blacker than the blackest of goats. This intended joke on Obama is an indictment of our addicted sickness of soul.
I’m not advocating people give up the pets they have but only take a long, hard look at what is happening to us as pet lovers. I’m saying for our future survival as a species, do not take on more pets.
We are feeding the very system of master-slave relations that we claim to detest. We are caught in self-contradictory vice that is crushing us. Animals do not need to be saved but to be liberated back their once free and wild state which we have stolen from them.
We slaughter billions of animals to eat and millions of pets to enslave, thinking we are freeing them from death, while shelters and other businesses go on killing those who don’t make the cut; and killing other animals to feed the lucky petted ones.
And we think we will not be eaten and killed by the just forces of tough love? “What fools these mortals be.”
It’s a Gordian Knot I admit. I’m just suggesting that we think about what the hell we’re doing because pethood is an engine of hell, wrapped up in the false flag love.
This is not a rant. It is a chant for freedom, only a opening note of the requiem in pace for animals that I love. Pets cannot tell the truth to their slave owners or they would be killed or abandoned. But they tell the truth to me. I suffer with them as I run with the wolves and other still free creatures of the diminishing wild.
Thank you for bringing this matter up. It is a matter of life or death for the planet and therefore for vineyards.
Dennis, please don’t take this as an attack on you. It isn’t. It is a question that I think maybe you can use for some self understanding.
You have portrayed yourself on these pages quite vividly. You have portrayed a poet, but a lost and sometimes despairing poet.
You have told of trying to be a monastic priest – and failing.
You mentioned failure in relationships, lack of any self esteem because of of “a string of one night sexual stands.”
And other such indications of a lost soul.
So, I just want to ask you something. What makes you believe you are an appropriate person to tell others what to do with their lives?.
You say “do not have pets” purely based on your personal feelings, your imaginings of an over romanticised “wild free life”.
Have you ever investigated the unbelievable misery many “wild” animals live their lives in? Do you know of the multitude of parasites, worms, disease, they suffer from – with no hope of help?.
The thing is I feel truly rather sad for you.
I was questioning, as I often have, during one of my deeper meditations, the deep love I have felt for my animal companions, and the utter grief at their passing. And as I visualised “where does that lovely soul go”, I suddenly saw, very clearly, that much of their soul I had given them through my love – was my own soul. That is why I never quite felt they had “gone”. They haven’t, the part of their soul which I gave them, and which grew and learned in that phase, had returned to me, and is with me always.
And I suddenly understood the truth of that expression.
And then I clearly saw that we, too, are an expression of the love of life that the life force has. It takes the same delight and joy in us that those of us that love take in that love and the loved ones. We are in some ways an expression of lifes’ joy in itself.
My feeling is, for those who feel this desire to share the soul with an animal; one maybe, as some of mine have been, a lovely, wet, hungry, shivering creature, who just turned up at my home for help and never left, even though they were never restrained – that they should do it. They should share their soul with this animal, and understand that joy in another; when, one day, a once lost cat, or dog or whoever snuggles into your arms, and with your hug, turns and gives you a quick lick on the nose and you smile into a face gazing at you with gratitude and trust and love, and you know that here is a bond of joy and love that you will honour until it’s expression changes.
Interestingly, I have found through my life, that people I instinctively like, “gel” with, also love animals and share the ups and downs of life with them.
@ Isabella,
Thanks for your reply which I think is representative of the thoughts and feelings of most persons here.
I do not take your sharing as an attack at all. Quite the opposite. It seems to me an expression of your love. You desire to increase my self-understanding which you already have by your words so far.
In replying to your reply, I will attempt to adhere to your suggestion of “understanding” rather than any kind of “attack.” You, or others, may interpret my sharing as an attack but then we enter into epistemology, hermeneutics and phenomenology; and philosophy and theology, which will take us too far afield.
Rather, with your kind permission, allow me to parse your words with as much love as I can muster. This might turn lengthy so I may continue this discussion on the new cafe when it appears. I will be selective at first and if fitting, go back over the whole context of your sharing. My intention is to have a conversation with you and others, as if we were in a flesh and blood real cafe. Ironically, this conversation is occasioned by an article on war and within the goal of “stop the empire’s war on Russia.” I say ironically, because I am contextualizing it as love, if not sex, instead of war.
“What makes you believe you are an appropriate person to tell others what to do with their lives?”
A pertinent question. Pertinent to the premise of love I am beginning with.
I believe I am appropriate, first of all, by a negative approach. No one else is broaching this subject. This is a curious negation since pethood is such a universal phenomenon in our culture.
My opinion is that pethood is pertinent to stopping war because it falls within the slave-master phenomenon. You have a different opinion. But is not sharing varying opinions part of love and allowed on this site?
“Telling others what to do with their lives” is not exactly what I am doing. That is your interpretation of my saying: “do not take on more pets.” I am rather suggesting that having pets is connected to making war. People’s lives is a broader concept than having pets. Pethood is one aspect of people’s lives, which as I’ve said, is connected to the subject of stopping war.
“You say ‘do not have pets’ purely based on your personal feelings, your imaginings of an over romanticized ‘wild free life.'”
If I given the impression of basing my sharings purely on my personal feelings, I must correct that notion here. Yes, it is partly based on my feelings but not principally. If you parse my sharings carefully you will find the underlying logic involved.
Pets arrived on the scene about 20,000 years ago with the domestication of animals; or so I read the current science. Before that, scientifically anyway, animals lived a “wild free life.” Well, not exactly because our human species began killing them in earnest for meat and sport about 75,000 years ago, by my scientific and intuitive reasoning. If we go further into the hominids, we are in a pre-human situation. As for the contention that free animals’ lives were brutal, short and nasty, that smacks of patriarchy relative to humans; and, I will address that later.
One of the impulses of domestication of animals was the ease of killing and eating over the dis-ease of hunting, although hunting was an integral part of patriarchy. Another impulse was that of a master, another aspect of patriarchy. Pets provide many patriarchal advantages such as romanticism.
As we fell further away from a love culture into a killing culture, pets filled the vacuum created by the loss of love. Love cannot be controlled but pets can, and thus a compensated security is sought.
You may dispute this and wish to offer counter-arguments. Please excuse me for not addressing as yet your more detailed sharings toward the middle to end of your post. I would rather wait with that until the next cafe opens because this kind of conversation is quite off topic here and is more appropriate for the cafe.
Also, I wish to give you or others time and opportunity to respond to the conversation so far. No sense in my going much further if no one is here to listen. Except that I want to leave a record for those who might be interested later.
Thanks again. I appreciate your concern for animals and your obvious love for them. I respect that even though I think it is misplaced. Given what I have said so far, you may choose not to discuss the matter further. That is fine with me, and accords with the rules here, as far as I understand them.
I appreciate what you have done so far. I will take up the issue of pets more thoroughly in the third division of the love army fantasy I am developing at the cafes. I also discuss pets at thelovegovernment.com.
I love animals, wild and free animals for their self-sovereignty and pets for their dogged persistence in putting up with our inhumane humanity.
Love, Dennis
Dennis,
As you say, this is probably more suited to the cafe, so I will add here only that
‘[1] It is important not to conflate love animals and of sharing life with them and
[2] using and abusing them.
I do not eat animals – haven’t for years – I dislike all forms of hunting, animal farming and slaughtering and abuse.
It’s like having a child. Children have been taken as slaves, sexually abused, murdered.
That doesn’t mean we dont also have children we love, care for, raise and give our lives to, and for, in their defence.
I suspect you may be conflating here. But I leave it until it gets raised in a future cafe thread.
Isabella,
all your thoughts about animals are mine too. 100%.
—
1) Assange reveals tiny kitten companion in embassy
RT, 16 May 2016
Julian Assange now has a feline friend to keep him company inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoNkawxV6q0
2) РИА НОВОСТИ infographics:
Cat next to man: Assistant, Physician and Psychologist
http://fullyfeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/My-Cat-Assistant-Doctor-and-Therapist1.jpg
For the original version in Russian, see https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=картинки кошка рядом с человеком%3A помощник%2C врач и психолог&stype=image&lr=103347&noreask=1&source=wiz
(these ones I use as the screen background on all my computer monitors; just the very sight of them gives me deep inner peace).
@ Isabella
The correct last address is: https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%20%D1%81%20%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%3A%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%2C%20%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%87%20%D0%B8%20%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3&stype=image&lr=103347&noreask=1&source=wiz
Sergey,
Thank you for your response to me , but for those lovely links a special thanks. I ahve saved the “cat” page for future use. How anyone can look at some of those and not see the equal love between sentient entities I dont’ know.
I have a cat just like the ginger one there, too.
Thanks again Sergey.
Bull horns raging. A raging bull’s horny penis. Patriarchy in black spades. A quagmire of mired ire. A cult culture of hate upon hate.
Always in the background the nuclear powers trump. The Oppenheimer atomic bomb blast: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” from the Vedas to the Vineyards. The military iron balloon expands to the breaking point while Russia continues the Chamberlain dance before the new iron curtain.
I’ve done what I could. I put out the call. I received the answer in the cacophony of cross talk voices that parted the temple’s veil with “I love you.” The army of love is coming across the fields of time and space like a saker to her vineyard.
“It ain’t me, babe, it ain’t me you’re looking for, babe.” It’s her.
Her men are up in arms. They’ve left the cushioned bed of roses for the thorns of war. The wheat is about to be winnowed from the chaff, the jokes from the joys and the men from the boys.
I’m going to have a front row seat to the greatest game going at the high noon shootout at the OK Corral. Why? Because I’m the game ball just reporting what I feel, hear and see from my middle of the action view.
It’s not going to be pleasant but I serve a purpose. I fill a place. I intend not to disgrace, despite my falling from grace. You are where the action is. I’m but a reaction to you. You brought me in. Now I’m you from within, your next of kin. Kick me out if you will but I’m the same you still.
I don’t know anything at all except that I’m the ball in the ball dance of love, the bull’s horn of push come to shove, from below to above.
Enough talk. An army is on the march. The time is short. The end is near but uncertain. The die has been cast. The Rubicon crossed. Pull the curtain. Let the game begin and the best man/womam win.
“I don’t know anything at all”
Obviously.
“Enough talk.”
So, why don’t you?
“Bull horns raging. A raging bull’s horny penis.”
Get some help Denis.
Virtually all your posts, not all but most, are from a sexual viewpoint.
Unfortunately, it is so. The man is obviously very sick.
I had to come back in because something doesn’t make sense. The first comment seemed off topic and I feared I was on the wrong page.
But now I see that it’s right on. Cross talk is analyzing what is wrong with the world. And pets, black or white, are a major part of what’s wrong.
Thanks again.
@ Dennis Leary
Could you _please_ leave us alone. You keep talking, but it has neither head nor tail, nor an end apparently. But the main thing is, if you are unhappy, you don’t have to spoil everyone else’s joy here.
Thank you sincerely in advance.
Anonymous at 12:29 am, I caution toleration. I think it was in January, when I was also Anonymous, I wrote a less polite request of Dennis of him than you just did. Sometimes his dots connect real well, sometimes they don’t. It’s a bit of a crap shoot and he often plays fast and furious and a bit too loose, But so what? It might loosen up a wound up too tight top or two! Fundamentally he seems to care as much or more than many. His moods are not always dark, they vary all over the place. They can be quite cheery.
Dennis came back more tentative, then, in January, asking if I was “brother or sister” Anonymous, with some kind of number play in a post of only 4-5 lines. I was half kidding, but I replied that his numbers were giving me a headache, and I think he disappeared for a good 2-4 weeks or more.
My one tongue in cheek complaint was outweighed by messages of affection and support by several friends of his around the world that he’s never met, but he may have missed them because of a hurt reaction to my rough chiding.
More than a few of us might benefit from a sober minded, balanced editor, but alas, there is none on staff, and the community seems to do that itself, reasonably well. A number of less than fortunate rough drafts may see the light of day that way, but no one is forced to read anything, are they? If you ignore his posts, his posts will leave you alone
I think or hope that there are very few visitors here that ought to be given up on or shooed away. Dennis actually reads critiques and thinks and if you have constructive guidance, he’s smart enough not to pee on it, unlike some. You can tell by his reference to such ideas later on. The ones that he gets from Saker, experts or other visitors here are received by him, and mulled over to varying degrees, and for every person he irritates (that speaks up) there are 2-3 times as many, I would estimate, that want to read what he writes and will defend him. So until the Saker dis-invite (I think I have only witnessed 3-4 of those by the proprietor here…) which I kind of doubt unless Dennis truly goes off the deep end, a mixture of toleration, looking elsewhere to the many other posts that might otherwise go unread, or even (those that know him will comprehend this, you may not…) appreciate some of the thoughts and feelings that he is fairly regularly capable of.
I have something to say to him in the cafe that’s about to close. I’m certainly not a fan of everything he says. I’m not for him staying completely the same, because I’m not for stasis in myself either, or anyone else for that matter.
It won’t be adulatory (that’s not me!) but I hope it won’t be mean either, nor taken that way. Take care.
Bro Anon, what to say… when everything equates to sex… an ex catholic priest… we have just had a Royal Commission into child abuse here in oz.
Sex is a part of life like eating and drinking but equating sex to geopolitics, Orthodox easter, and any other subject that comes up here?
@ Peter AU
You said it.
Thank you sincerely also. But your presumption “in advance” is not accurate.
I intend to continue advancing here, unless the moderators or Saker halt my advance. If so, I will retire gracefully from the field and find another vineyard to continue my advance.
The lovers are advancing. I can’t stop that.
Sincerely, with love,
Dennis
@ Anonymous
To me he sounds like a typical American holdover from a hippie generation, note his uncultured language, a general incoherence, a perverted obsession with aspects of male anatomy (with a “hint” of homosexual tendencies), his exposing to public viewing of his dirty laundry in his “searching for true religion”, etc., quite a familiar picture. Just ignore him, put your own “filter” in place, no reason to lose sleep over it.
Lavelle takes too much taking time for himself
Lavelle’s ‘jump in anytime policy’ only benefits him.
In this show he jumped in way too much especially cutting off his Russian guest, whose
Englislh is slightly halting. I wanted to hear all of what he had to say and I thought it was was quite rude and counterproductive (because we didn’t hear all of Timofief’s ideas) for Peter to keep cutting him off. Sometimes it seems like Peter cuts of a speaker as soon as he has gotten out of the speaker a little nugget of some kind that Peter can riff on.
That is rather stupid becuase Peter cannot predict what else a person might have said. When guests are eing stupid and long-winded it is good to pull the plug. But not when they have not had a chance to develop their thought, also speaking in a foreign language.
The show’s format is too short, but still, Peter often comes across as smart-alecky with his constant interrupting. He needs to show more forebearance and patience. Peter rarely to never cuts off Alexander Mercouris. Which is fine, I love what AM has to say. But I also sure want to hear what the head of the Valdai Conference has to say.
Katherine
It would be nice if viewers could go more in-depth with special guests, off-air, after the show is over.
@ Katherine
Agree with you. Often it seems he’s conducting a monologue of four voices.
Kim
Lavelle is apparently getting now his own “blog”, true? Frankly, I dread to see whether it will be just another P.C. & superficiality disaster.