The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Name:
Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Toyota -- The Blue Screen of Death

UPDATE March 17m 2010
More than 100 complaints lodged over fixed Toyotas The The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported today that sudden acceleration reports by owners of Toyotas that have already had the recall repair to their throttle (gas) pedal completed has increased to 105. The throttle pedal repair may help some Toyotas, but does not begin to address the underlying computer control problem.

A typical report is from Mr. John Moscicki, a mechanic from Lake Oswego, OR who formerly specialized in restoration of high performance Porsche vehicles. "It just went to the floor like some other system had control of it," said the performance car expert. He was going to give the car to his daughter, but now says, "I wouldn't let her anywhere near this car."


Original Post March 16, 2010
Toyota has given a whole new meaning to the compute phenomena called “Blue screen of death.” Any of us who have spend very much time with a PC has seen the blue screen of death. When some bug happens, when one software gets into conflict with another software, or some memory bit malfunctions, the computer crashes. When your PC malfunctions, or “crashes,” sometimes it just stops with whatever screen you were last viewing. Sometimes the PC gives you a blue screen with a cryptic message. Computer geeks have long called that the “Blue screen of death.” It means that you have to unplug your computer and reboot it from the beginning. PC computers have gotten more reliable in the past decade so we don't see the Blue screen of death as often as we once did, but it still happens once in a while.

When your PC crashes, you lose whatever document you might have been working on. Two hours of typing into a word document may be lost. When web surfing a Blue screen of death only costs you the time to reboot and log back into the web site, unless you are in the middle of a financial transaction and have given your VISA card number and haven't gotten the confirmation back. But now Toyota Motors has given us a whole new meaning for the “Blue screen of death.”

New cars are more and more controlled by computers, and Toyota has been leading the revolution of automatic control for several decades. Control of the vehicle has continually been taken more and more away from the driver and given to an automatic control system. The driver may notice interlocks that have been added for safety. For example, you cannot shift the vehicle out of “park” until and unless you put your foot on the brake peddle. It is a safety feature as long as your computer is functioning properly, but when the computer crashes, or goes to the Blue screen of death, you may be in big trouble. When the computer goes south, even the manufacturer trained maintenance mechanics often can't figure out what to do. Here are a couple of examples.

Some years ago Bob owned a Toyota Corolla. One of Bob's neighbors had an identical model and year. We lived in a town where the summer weather often had 100 degree (F) afternoons. There was some problem in the Toyotas that would not allow the driver to start the engine on a hot afternoon. My neighbor took his to the Toyota dealer half a dozen times, and they assured him that it was all working properly. Only when he came out of work wanting to start the car to drive home, he had to ask for help to push the car to get it started. I had the same problem. Once you get 4 men to push the car you could pop the clutch and get it started, but on a hot summer afternoon it would not start by itself. I eventually figured out that I could open the hood and take a jumper wire from the battery to the starter solenoid, and it would start right up. We tried to trace the wires from the key “start” switch to the starter solenoid but it got lost in a jumble of relays and control features all designed to control the functions without driver knowledge or ability to control. I eventually got tired of having to open the hood and jumper the electric system every time I wanted to drive the car so I ran a bypass wire from the solenoid to a new switch for the driver. In summer I could push my new (non Toyota) switch and start the engine. Once started it would run fine, but I got rid of the Corolla and have never driven a Toyota since. New Toyotas now need a new wire and new switch to be safe. More on that later.

In the past couple of decades Toyota has replaced most of their control relays with a computer control system that takes away even more of the driver's control. The throttle (gas) pedal no longer has a mechanical linkage to the engine throttle. A sensor measures the position of the throttle peddle and tells the computer how far down the driver has pushed it. The computer is connected by wires to servo devices that control the engine fuel and air. The Toyota computer adjusts the fuel injection system and air intake according to its software instructions that depend on many factors such as throttle peddle position, cruise control setting, brake peddle position, engine temperature, exhaust gas composition, and other factors.

The Toyota computer usually does a fine job of regulating all the settings to optimize gas mileage and allowing ignorant drivers to operate the vehicle. The Toyota computer, not the driver, is in control of the vehicle. The driver cannot control gas, brakes, speed, or gear shift without the computer functioning properly. Its not just the throttle linkage that has been removed and replaced with sensors and computer operated actuators. A malfunctioning computer can set the engine to full throttle and refuse to acknowledge any driver control, depending on the particular malfunction. The blue screen of death can kill you.

The brake system is tied to a computerized “anti-lock” feature that is supposed to prevent skids by killing the brakes on any wheel that is skidding on ice or pavement. It works fine and allows you to stop in less distance especially on ice or snow, but it is dependent on normal computer function to stop at all. A malfunctioning computer can disrupt the brakes. A malfunctioning computer can mistake normal braking for skidding and prevent braking by any or all wheels. The brakes of a Prius are even more complicated in that they sometimes use a backward force from electric motors acting a generators to recapture energy and recharge the batteries instead of wasting the energy in brake pad heat. One complaint with the Prius was that it took about 3 seconds for the computer to engage the actual brakes in some emergency stops. A malfunctioning computer may never engage the brakes, depending on the particular malfunction. The blue screen of death can kill you.

The gear shift is also tied to the computer. A required “safety” feature prevents shifting out of park unless the computer knows that you have your foot on the brake pedal. That is supposed to prevent you from accidentally shifting into forward when a competent driver does not intend to do so. It also keeps dogs and small children from accidentally shifting into forward because they can't reach the brake pedal at the same time. It is a safety feature that probably has prevented numerous runaway vehicles operated by dogs or children, but it can cause problems when the computer malfunctions. A lesser known “safety” feature can prevents you from shifting out of forward into neutral in certain conditions. One of the conditions is that shifting from forward to neutral while accelerating at high speed is prevented or can be prevented by a nonfunctional computer. On some Toyota vehicles, such as the Prius, the shift control is no longer actually connected to a transmission either. A malfunctioning computer may block a shift to neutral, depending on the particular malfunction. The blue screen of death can kill you.

One night I was driving a 1954 Ford down Interstate 5 near Seattle. The gas peddle linkage return spring suddenly broke (SNAP!). The gas peddle fell to the floor and stayed there. I was able to shut the key switch off within seconds. I then was able to continue down the freeway by turning the key switch on and off running the engine at full power intermittently until I came to an exit and coasted to a safe stop. Toyota no longer allows the driver to turn off the engine. It no longer has a throttle linkage, only a computer linkage. The Toyota throttle peddle only is connected to a sensor that is supposed to tell the computer where the peddle is located. Toyota claims that friction in the peddle became too much for their return spring so the peddle got stuck. Perhaps that was part of the problem, or perhaps a few return springs broke. But on Toyota there is no fail-safe mode. The driver no longer has a key switch to shut the engine off. If there is a mechanical problem in the Toyota throttle peddle your life is at risk. That is an unacceptable risk in my opinion. Peddles stick and return springs sometimes break. It should not kill the driver.

Some years later I was driving down Interstate 90 in a GMC truck from a well known trailer and truck rental company. A plastic clip holding the throttle linkage together broke and the linkage disconnected. The engine went to full throttle. Once again I was able to use the key switch to cut the ignition, and by intermittently turning the ignition on and off I was able to exit into a rest area. A quick fix with some bailing wire and we were off down the road again. But Toyota vehicles no longer even have a mechanical throttle linkage. When the Toyota computer or any of those sensors has malfunctioned it can suddenly go to full engine power and there is nothing that the driver can do about it. On Toyota there is no fail-safe mode. The driver no longer has a key switch to shut the engine off. If there is a mechanical problem, a computer problem, a wiring problem, or a sensor problem, in the Toyota your life is at risk. That is an unacceptable risk in my opinion. Any of those complicated sensors, wires, or computers can sometimes malfunction. It should not kill the driver.

In older cars there was always the key switch as the last resort. No so any more. Toyota, and other companies, have done away with the driver controlled “OFF” position on a key switch. In the new cars they have a push button “START” switch to start the car instead of turning a key switch. In a Toyota you are supposed to press and HOLD the “START” button for 3 seconds to stop the engine. It was done for convenience and to have more high tech sales features. On some Chevrolet models your key has a button that can start your car while you are in your house. On some car models the car senses when you bring the key into the vehicle and shut the door. It then locks the door and starts the vehicle without you having to even press a button. All these features are wonderful but when the computer goes blue screen you can be in a world of hurt.

When the Toyota control computer goes into some failure modes it runs the engine to full power, prevents effective braking and won't let you shift into neutral. There is no key switch to turn it off. Unlike your home PC, when the blue screen of death happens to a Toyota product you are in extreme danger of actual physical death. It can and will kill you. Here is the recording of the last words of a man as his Lexus came to the end of a highway at 125 mph. Toyota 911 Call Of Family's Fatal Lexus Crash

Toyota continues to deny that there is any problem. The mentality of Toyota is typical of Japanese culture, with a high reliance on established authority. In WW II the Japanese military continued to rely on the weapons and tactics it began the war without recognizing that their Zero airplane, for example, had become largely obsolete by 1943. The Japanese culture leads to bull headed adherence to authority even in the face of many contradictory facts and events. Toyota says that they are “unable to reproduce the failure.” DUH! A flipped bit computer failure is not reproducible. The next computer failure will be some other flipped bit or software glitch. A Prius driver in California drove his Prius for 3 years without any problems. Then one day the computer went to blue screen and almost killed him. He was able to slow down and stop only after the California Highway Patrol (CHP) suggested the “emergency” or “parking” brake. It is the only braking system that is not computer controlled. Toyota subsequently examined the Prius for 2 days and was unable to recreate the event. Not surprising. It had functioned 100% normal for 3 years. One time out of thousands its computer went blue screen and tried to kill the driver. The next thousands of times it may function 100% normally.

The data captured from the memory of the malfunction Prius should be used by Toyota computer and control engineers as clues to what causes runaway vehicles. Instead of using the information to fix the problem, Toyota is still denying the problem. See: Toyota dismisses Calif. man's runaway Prius report Also See; Toyota Co. rebuffs critic who blames electronics

Toyota has tried to blame a sticky bearing in the throttle pedal for the blue screen deaths, and has been making small “fixes” to the pedals, but the runaway Toyota vehicles and deaths continue. As of March 5, more than 60 drivers have experienced runaway Toyotas after having their gas pedals “fixed” by Toyota. Obviously their underlying computer problem has not been addressed.

Part of the denial at Toyota may be motivated by thousands of lawsuits that are being filed by lieyers for Toyota owners. See: Some Toyota drivers suing in US for a full refund


But its not just disgruntled customers asking for refunds. In Orange County California the District Prosecuting Attorney has filed charges of racketeering and fraud against Toyota for lying to the public. See: Racketeering, Unfair Business Practices Claims Added Against Toyota Lying to the public is a crime in the US. Toyota has been denying that there are any problems for a decade now, and the problems keep getting worse.

Yes, there have been runaway vehicles of other manufacturers. Yes sometimes the other vehicles crash and result in death or injury. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received 15,174 complaints involving unintended acceleration in the past decade. In most cases the driver was able to shut off the vehicle. However, runaway Toyotas amount to almost half of all sudden acceleration deaths, and its getting worse. The nature of the runaway Toyota control system prevents the driver from stopping the vehicle. In my years of driving I have experienced 2 runaway acceleration problems in a Ford and a GM products. Both times I was able to shut off the engine before any damage occurred. In the new Toyota computerized system that “OFF” control has been taken away from the driver. When a Toyota has a runaway control system you are no longer able to stop it. When a Toyota control computer goes south, the blue screen of death has a whole new meaning. It can kill you.

One investigations currently going on is to test the Toyota computers for cosmic radiation bit flipping. It has long been known that cosmic rays, electromagnetic radiation, and other interference can sometimes change or “flip” memory bits from 0 to 1 or vice versa. Airplane and space ship computer systems take many precautions against random memory flipping by cosmic rays. At sea level there is less probably of cosmic ray caused bit flipping but it still happens sometimes. Only 1 flipped bit can send your whole computer into a total malfunction, depending on which bit is randomly flipped. See a report in the Detroit Free Press about government investigation of Toyota computers for cosmic ray bit flipping.

I recalled above how I once had to install a new wire in a Toyota Corolla to start the engine in hot weather. If you own a Toyota of any model that has no key “off” switch, you need to install an additional wire before you turn another wheel. Find the ignition coil and run a wire from the battery side of the coil to a newly installed grounding switch within reach of the driver. Connect the other side of the switch to a convenient ground on the vehicle chassis. When your Toyota computer goes into runaway mode you will be able to ground the engine ignition and stop the engine regardless of whatever command the computer is putting out. On a battery driven hybrid car such as the Prius you my also need to install a shut off switch for the battery pack to shut the electric motors off.

Somehow the Toyota engineers and managers got so busy making the car automatic that they took away all the driver controls that make it safe. It works fine as long as the computer is operating normally, but when you get the blue screen of death, it can kill you.

Labels:

82 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good posting, Bob.

Alas, my 2002 Sienna has a number of coils, one for each cylinder, mounted directly on the plug, so the shut off you mention will not work in any Toyota which also has multiple coils.

I like my Toyota, which is an older one without fly by wire throttle. But, it at times also will not start when it is hot out. But, the problem in mine is the cheap TRW alarm put on by the dealer to comply with Texas law requiring a car alarm. It also when hot fires off the alarm in a car which is locked up and has no one in it.

Embedded computers can be tricky. I worked for some years before retirement on a 'black box' (crew intercom) for a well known military aircraft. It had an extensive software listing including voice synthesizer, for such goodies as "PULL UP!!!!" And, "THREAT TRACK!" Etc.

It had a circuit called "watch dog timer" connected to Power on Clear on the microprocessor. If it timed out, it did a restart on the microprocessor. To keep it from timing out, every major routine would write a 1 to that timer to keep it running. If it locked up, the timer would reset the Microprocessor and start it over.

One day, I had a problem in the only box we happened to have in house on that day. I went to the lead engineering tech and asked him the period on the watch dog timer. He almost "swallowed his false teeth" and said, "It should never fire. Only in dire circumstances where the software for some unexpected reason gets lost."

I told him, "Oops! It is periodic, and always has been. I didn't know it wasn't supposed to be doing that."

When I got my hands on another one, it turned out to be ~200 milliseconds. EVERY 200 MILLISECONDS THAT $150,000 BOX GOT LOST AND HAD TO RESET AND START OVER. 24/7. And, the design team obviously never bothered to check it.

Ah, what the heck! Nukes don't always fire off when the plane crashes, heh, heh.

I suggest the Toyota computer needs a watch dog timer to restart the thing when it locks up. I am surprised it doesn't have one. That circuit has been in common use for several decades.

Another thing they should do, in case the lock-up is not a cosmic ray but a software defect ala my black box, is open up the source.

No, of course, I don't mean let anyone change the programming. I mean publish the entire source listing for the computer on the Internet, and let the Linux volunteers have at it, to show the defects which might cause the problem. Then, the Toyota team can review and add the fixes. Linux guys are good at that sort of thing.

Normally, a company does not open its software to protect a competitive advantage. I think most people will agree that right now Toyota does not have any competitive advantage, heh, heh.

Anonymous age 67

March 16, 2010 6:30 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous;
Thanks for the update on the multiple coils. If a car has multiple coils then you need to interrupt and ground ahead of the distribution timing circuit, however that now works in new Toyotas. The point is that you have to have a positive shut off that will override and interrupt all factory computer control circuits.

You also make some good points about designing control circuits. Toyota will not begin to make fixes until they stop declaring that it has no problems. Toyota management needs to be kicking some butts down in the compeer controls department.

March 16, 2010 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The people at Honda must be loving it. The reason being Toyota products have for along time have been rated just slightly better than Honda. With these defects the pendulum is swinging back to Honda.

March 16, 2010 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, what do you think about this "man of god" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5161465-504083.html

March 16, 2010 9:46 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
That is not Bob's religion so Bob is not an expert on Christian theology. However it should be noted that for about a thousand years the Catholic Church was the law throughout Europe. During those centuries, Canon Law prohibited marriage of women younger than 7 years old. The prohibition of marriage of young women comes mostly from feminist misandrist dogma. Feminists continually attempt to prevent all marraige by postponing marriage until the woman is too old to consummate the marriage by bearing children.
Note also that the Mann Act under which this man was arrested is sexist and unconstitutional because 1. it does not give equal protection to all citizens, and 2. it is outside the powers of the federal government as authorized by the Constitution.

March 17, 2010 6:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction and an apology. The watch dog timer on that black box had a 2 millisecond period. I have been retired and simply forgot until I thought about it some more. So, the software lost itself 500 times a second. The software was, though, designed to store enough information to return to where it was interrupted. Thank God the thing was not a primary control box like on the Toyota.

Anonymous age 67

March 17, 2010 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know anyone who is a real expert on "Christian theology". Every "expert" has a different viewpoint.

However, there is a Bible saying, about render to Caesar what is Caesars. I believe all are to obey civil law unless there is a major moral issue involved. And, having sex with seven year olds, (almost certainly forbidden without marriage, which he did not have,) is not a major moral issue.

No matter what a person's belief, there are things you don't do. If you are an atheist, do not go to the highest mountain during a major electrical storm, stand on the peak, shake your fist at the sky, and shout, "There is no God!" Heh, heh.

And, no matter what you believe about age of consent, you do not bang girls under the age proscribed by your society, period, end of debate.

Don't get me wrong. I believe sexual conduct is hormone driven, in both males and females. If a girl reaches puberty at age 7, I think it isn't going to be long before she at least thinks about sex. I don't know, of course, but that is my belief.

But, if society has set an age of 16 as minimum, especially in a sick society like the Anglosphere, they are going to come in large numbers and do horrid things to your body, even if that age limit is stupid -- which it is.

One hundred years ago, and today in most of Mexico, the belief is when a girl is sexually mature, and chooses willingly to have sex, it makes no point to be tossing a man in prison. So, after her 14th birthday, in my state, only she or her parents can file charges, and if the man takes her as his 'wife' the parents usually accept her voluntary role and let it go.

Let me add a note here. The US in its arrogance claims to have the right to over-ride the laws of any nation, anywhere on the planet, and if a US citizen or legal resident has sex with a girl under the age of 16 anywhere on the planet, even when lawfully married in another nation, they will toss you in the slammer for 15 years.

I will say the use of the term 'sexually assaulted' repeatedly in that article did make me angry. It was a propaganda term, and evidence showed the 15 year old was most certainly a willing participant, so 'sexual assault' is a lie.

Anonymous age 67

March 17, 2010 8:42 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Most of our current civil laws on sex and marriage are naught but feminist hate being forced on the society by mangina feminist lackeys and their huge armies of armed gun thugs. They have no moral basis other than anti-men hate.

Government estimates now say that the average female in the US begins having adult sex at age 14.8 years. Under current hate law, all of her partners are criminal "rapists." Hate laws need to be eradicated along with the feminists and their mangina lackeys.

March 17, 2010 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob: Your opinion on constitutional law is invalid. The Supreme Court, the god of America, has decided that the religious excercise clause can be overridden by a generally applicable neutral law. It has decided that the free exercise clause does not allow a man to be a law unto himself by way of religion.

The banning of good young females from being the toys of men is such a generally applicable neutral law (doesn't target a specific religion).

The only way you'll change the mind of the American government is by killing all of it's members.

Other guy: The church of Rome WAS ceasar since the emperor passed temporal power to the pope sometime in the 5th century or so (6th).

However, many people do agree that the entire Bible IS abbrogated by the ceasar tax clause.

Fine.

Bob: the only way you'll get rid of the idea (the ENFORCED idea) that men cannot have sweet wonderful young females as wives because the Men and Women of the STATE says so (render to ceasar unto ceasar) is by murdering all the people who, when confronted by the idea of young females being married to men, say render to ceasar.

Murdering all of them.

The only way you can do that ... well you can't.

Bob: good men stand in the way of bad men. This is democracy. Democracy is the enemy of bad men and the friend of WOMEN and .... well good men back it, it's not really their friend.

Bob: We will NEVER have what we want unless the Islamics conqure and slaughter the good pro-women's rights men. Whenever I talk to a good man he tells me he hopes I get raped in jail by faggots. They are all completely opposed to men having young wives. Democracy gives them power. Democracy must end for bad men to reign again and for all men who want young wives to have them again.

When good men gain power, they share that power with women.

The only way to stop this is to curtail democracy so only bad men have power.
(Limited democracy, like england was before the removal of the pocket and rotten boroughs)

March 17, 2010 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, no matter what you believe about age of consent, you do not bang girls under the age proscribed by your society, period, end of debate."

Why not? What are we to do then?
Should we wholeheartedly support the islamics in their takeover and destruction of western civilization?

Why should one obey one's fucking society?
Why not war against it if it is opposed to your wishes?

March 17, 2010 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear God: let our enemies destroy us.

March 17, 2010 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not and die rather than obey?
Why not kill rather than obey?
Why not kill those feminists and mangina lakeys.

Give reasons?
We want what we want.
What we want is illegal.
We can never get what we want.
What is there to lose? We have nothing.

March 17, 2010 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, looks like you had a brush with disaster on that highway. Good to read your article on cars.... a welcome break from praising murderers and child rapers.

March 17, 2010 3:39 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:

1. These comments have been seriously off topic. Please make your comments germane to the Toyota Blue Screen of Death.

2. If you think that young American women today are any more "sweet," or "wonderful" than any other feminist trained cow you are seriously delusional. By the time the "little princess" is 6 years old she's already been raised to be a serious bitch. She learns all that before kindergarten by watching mom.

March 17, 2010 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob what do you think of these comments (good, western, men complaining that Saudi Arabia has not yet raised the marraige age to 18 (it is considering doing so and the saudi press is demanding it):
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/03/17/banning-loli-brides-bad-for-society/

""In the defence of non-retarded Muslims, they obviously don't all feel this way. I have a friend who left Iran to come here because he, and others like him, see how fucked up these fundamentalist countries are, and that the rules are fucking stupid. These particular Iranians are also the ones who protested (and got a beat-down) during the recent elections, so non-retarded Muslims are trying their best to fix their stupid countries.""

""It's because they're backwards idiots that they must be forced to reform. Just because it's the norm for them doesn't mean their wrongdoings can be tolerated. They cannot be allowed to continue this kind of thing, and if no one does anything about it, the next generation will be the same.""

""\u201cAge has nothing to do with the validity of the marriage contract, but consummation of marriage should be only when the bride reaches the age of puberty.\u201d
No consent either? I had the running notion that underage marriage was only illegal in the developed world because girls were not mature enough, from a mental stage perspective, to be able to fully commit and intellectually consent to the binding contract. That, and that most contracts require for the consummation of the contract in any case, which would of course also entail underage sex.
All in all, I really see that women have little rights so to speak in the middle-east.""



Bob: we always lose to democracy and good men.
We have lost /most/ of the world to them and their feminism/women's rights.
Western society rules much of the world.
The argument that "well back in the day peeps died at 30 so girls married young (12-14), but now peeps live longer so the marraige age should be later for females" Is so strongly believed and persuasive it is unrefutable by words alone (only force and executions can unseat it and women's rights.)

Every GOOD MAN want's women's rights. Every GOOD MAN want's the marraige age for girls raised.

Our ENEMY is good men. Our ENEMY is pluralistic democracy that gives them a voice (which they use to give women a voice too). Our ENEMY is fairness and justice. These concepts have DESTROYED OUR WORLD.

Bad men, men like you and I and others, want sweet young servant wives. GOOD MEN oppose us. They and their democracy. We must band together, as bad, greedy evil men, and crush the good, selfless, pro-equality men.

Think of the evil men of the past. Think of the millard lords of england who DID take very young wives and concubines right up untill the end of their reign (1830s when the parlementary voting system was reformed) and the raising of the "age of consent (for anything (contract, marraige, etc etc)" (right up untill the mid 1800s it was 7 in england, thusly one could always marry off daughters right when they were able to have children (and this is what happened: girls were married off to men... and had sex with their husband whenever he decided he wanted to play with them)).

Once the public, once non-landholding men, got the vote... got power... OUR WORLD ENDED. Our world existed UNCHANGED from the DAWN of history untill the mid 1800s... EVERYWHERE. Bad Men had Young Wives EVERYWHERE untill then. FROM THE VERY DAWN OF HISTORY. Pluralistic democracy changed all that.

Once upon a time all young women were married.
Good men took this from us.
Democracy stole the best part of life.

March 17, 2010 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"1. These comments have been seriously off topic. Please make your comments germane to the Toyota Blue Screen of Death."

So you're shying away from discussing women's rights / feminism now? Want to make your weblog more mainstream?

Sorry, I don't own a toyota.

Women are only sweet when they are kept in line, nomatter how old they are, no matter what culture they are from.

How about you put up a post about how pluralistic democracy changed everything, how when only men who were landholders voted (in the USA and in England, for instance) the marraige age or "age of consent" was really low, and (atleast in england) it had been that low since ... well since forever (since roman times... and before).

Why not make a nice well informed post about this, and how men ... well bad men... really liked this setup and enjoyed having cute young wives (and concubines on the side ofcourse). Maybe talk about how this is what the non-democratic arab states have and this is what the evil men who are landholders in those countries are protecting.

Maybe lookinto how granting the vote to non-landholding penniless men changed EVERYTHING.

Think about it, democracy existed in the past, in athens etc, but it was only for MEN who owned stuff... and THOSE men always kept women's rights away and always kept young females of their own (girls were men's toys).

This was the way of the world untill the mid 1800s. The mid 1800s is when voting was reformed in both the USA and england (no more landholding requirement: universal male sufferage... you could be a nobody who never did anything and get a seat at the begging table... and as a nobody you felt empathy for the universal nobody: females... but also an immense attaction to them.. you really liked them... here have some power women... and thusly "like" me)

Could you make a post about that tonight? Please? Then I could post my comments there.

I never wanted to buy a toyota.
I've always wanted to buy a cute virgin girl. (All evil men do)

March 17, 2010 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, know any specific examples of 6 year old girls who fit your description of mean, selfish, hateful, man-hating ?

Kids will be kids, but I wouldn't go overboard describing preschoolers as monsters.

March 17, 2010 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, what do you think of this opinion from an MRA (I agree w/ him, there is no hope, we have always been powerless, and have always helped women and fought eachother):

""
novaseeker March 16, 2010 at 01:49
Ah, but women join together in the face of male opposition. Men divide and take the side of the women in the face of male/female conflict.

For women it was very true that the personal was political in that they could leverage their demographic political muscle to force change, with the cooperation of the alpha-men in power who saw an advantage for themselves in this. But for men as a whole, it’s more true that the political is personal — which means avoiding marriage, X-Boxing, just going your own way and so on.

The idea that this will lead to change is a false one. It almost certainly won’t. But as a smart guy, and one who is connected politically with various friends downtown here in DC, I can say with a good degree of certainty that anything more ambitious is more than laughably a dead letter. Men do not cooperate when it comes to women — we fight each other. That’s why alternative means of finding a reasonable way to live in this female-dominant age is the only way to go for men, really. That looks differently for different men, but the commonality is opting out of this feminist world we live in. Trying to change it is a fool’s errand.

""

Bob, I've asked you many times
"What can we do? What should we do?"
and you've never responded. You said nothing.

And you're completely correct. We can do nothing.

The only way women's rights would be destroyed is if the world was destroyed.

and is it worth it to destroy the world JUST so that THEY won't win?

well...

March 17, 2010 8:27 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
For example, when I was in college the "little princess" who lived next door to my father was exactly like that. Like the book says, most of what people learn they have learned by the time they are in kindergarten.

March 17, 2010 9:25 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
One man cannot change the world. All one man can do is to make a small difference in the small corner of the world where he lives. Find something to change for the better and change it. If many men do one little thing it will change the world.

March 17, 2010 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One man cannot change the world. All one man can do is to make a small difference in the small corner of the world where he lives. Find something to change for the better and change it. If many men do one little thing it will change the world."

We will never beable to have the wives we want, and as you said; americans raise their daughters to be worthless "princesses" and have exported this idea to corrupt the entire world... and most men of the world support this because they are good people who don't see why females should not be princesses.

March 18, 2010 5:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
You are being unrealistic to think that a young wife would be any less of a feminist bitch than an older wife. If she has been raised a toxic misandrist culture and is protected by misandrist laws, it doesn't matter much if she is young or old. She is still going to think that she can control and dominate a family, that marriage is only a "relationship" and that she can leave and take your children. It is more effective for men to participate in the marriage strike until changes are made.

March 18, 2010 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>The banning of good young females from being the toys of men is such a generally applicable neutral law (doesn't target a specific religion).

Ah, yes, the feminist mantra that all females are sexless creatures and will only involve themselves in pleasures of the flesh -- with men, as opposed to the pure love of another female -- when forced to by the evil rapists. As I have said, the practical reason to obey ALL OF the laws of your society is, they have more guns and bodies to fight you, and this is not a minor issue. When you get nailed by their "radar" you are going to die. There are too many good women of an adult age in places like Mexico, PI, and Thailand, to give up your life for a young woman who will soon enough turn into an American Monster in any case.

But, I am not talking about 8 or 7 year olds. I am talking about 15 year old girls who are aggressively sexually active, then throwing men in jail for years, WHILE DOING NOTHING TO THE GIRLS. This is indeed based on nothing but man-hate.



Anyway, back to Toyota. Bob, do we know the Toyota computers are like PC's, with a microprocessor and a P-rom containing an extensive program, or are they a very complex Programmable Array type thingie? If they are a PAL, then perhaps my ideas are wrong. And, to do all they do real-time, I sort of wonder if a microprocessor isn't too slow. I suppose bit slice could do it, but that would be expensive.

Anonymous age 67

March 18, 2010 6:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous, age 67.
1. Yes, the feminist hate laws that make men into "rapists" for being seduced by horny young women are obscene violence against men.

2. The Toyota car computer is a variety of CPU processor that is apparently designed and manufactured specifically for Toyota. They claim on their Toyota web site that it is protected and redundant, but the user's experience shows otherwise. It has to have most programing in some form of ROM memory, and it has some RAM memory. It has some Read/Write stable memory to record the last operation even if power is disconnected. Those features are pretty common to all car controllers. Their problems happened when it became more and more complicated as it took over more and more of the operations from the driver. There are (unknown) circumstances that will cause it to crash or go into failure mode not following intended programs.

Diagnosing the Toyota computer errors is beyond the scope of this review, and in fact can only be accomplished by a team of computer designers who have access to software source code and physical design details.

Instead of stonewalling their problems, Toyota should be kicking butt in his control department and they should be using data such as hundreds of "off the brake" errors to help diagnose the problem.

The Highway Safety officials need to "ground" Toyotas until they can be made safe for operation on public roads.

March 18, 2010 7:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One rotten "princess" of Bob's youth means all females the world over are identical? Doubt it.

March 18, 2010 8:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One rotten "princess" of Bob's youth means all females the world over are identical? Doubt it.

March 18, 2010 8:35 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
You asked for "an example" and Bob posted an example. You are an example of the failure of stupid cow rhetoric.

March 18, 2010 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>You are an example of the failure of stupid cow rhetoric.

Good one, Bob! Keep it up. In my militant activist days before I saw the light and Got The (Heck) Out of the US, I wrote a nasty op-ed on average every two months, for 15 years, to the local newspaper in our rural Midwestern city of 100,000 people.

Everyone has a special talent if they seek it. Mine is exposing feminists as utter fools, a task which actually is pretty easy; just aim anywhere.

I knew when I wrote my op-eds, there was going to be a lot of p-o'd screams of rage and anger. As you well know, Bob, it felt good to respond appropriately to the incessant insults directed at men which are a daily part of the lesbian world. Sometimes, if I had unusually good inspiration for an op-ed, I'd be laughing so hard when I put the letter in the mailbox, I could barely walk home.


Thanks for the technical stuff. Yes, if they actually use any sort of CPU with serial operations, it can freeze up, guaranteed. If they didn't put in any watchdog timer or its equivalent, the designers should be summarily executed for murder.

Anonymous age 67

March 19, 2010 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, 67 :

Hope you saved some of those Letters to the Editor. They sound good, send some here for the readers.

March 19, 2010 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have contemplated sharing them, still unsure. Many of them are time/date sensitive. That is, they related to local events and feminist personalities, an oxymoron, at the time, and might not make sense in a vacuum. Thanks for the thought, though. It was fun.

Anonymous age 67

March 19, 2010 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 67, hope you'll share those letters; if not here, email:

glen_smith12x12@yahoo.com

I used to write a ton of letters back in D.C. (The Post, The Star, the Washington Times). You wouldn't believe the responses I got in the mail. They even got our unlisted phone number - you guessed it, our phone was busy.

March 20, 2010 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I find interesting with the Toyota sticking accelerator problem is that, in one incident of it media tried to shift the blame onto the driver. Of course, you guessed that driver was a man. In this case a Prius started speeding on a California freeway. When the driver called for help after his brakes had burned out from trying to stop the car, he was told to shift the car into neutral. He tried that but car would not disengage. Feminists want everyone to believe that both sexes were created for the benefit of the one (and, of course it is the females). Western society now teaches that women make choices because of what is happening to them and men make choices make choices because of how they feel. Back to this incident of the runaway Prius in California, no blame would have been put on the driver if it had been a woman. If women are to be treated with respect feminists must not be encouraged to get everyone to think of women as always being victims but treated as men would be facing identical situations and making identical choices.

March 20, 2010 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I set an alarm on Kalarm, Glen, and may try to send a couple of my better ones, which I think I can explain sufficiently to put into historical perspective.

I do not normally hide at all. But, since California decided to collect child support by sending a note via regular mail, then 30 days later issue a binding, nearly irreversible order for support, it is getting riskier to identify yourself.

Personally, I made a decision to avoid any illegal acts. But, if men were men, there would not be a government building standing in California with one brick on top of another brick.


Anonymous age 67

March 21, 2010 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Personally, I made a decision to avoid any illegal acts."

"But, if men were men, there would not be a government building standing in California with one brick on top of another brick."

How can you reconcile these two statements.

March 21, 2010 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm curious, are you in the habit of asking questions without thinking first?

I am in Mexico. My choice was to GTHO, since most men aren't men, thus there is no need for violence on my part.

And, my choice only applied to me. Those millions of men who do not want to leave probably should be making other decisions.

The abuses heaped on males today in the US transcend a hundred fold, maybe a thousand fold, anything King George did to the Colonies. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

I choose to avoid illegal acts because they are not practical. If I implement violent resistance by myself, I die, and that is the end of that. Like John Brown.

Resistance requires large numbers of people working together. The abuses heaped on men today are such that if men were men, instead of spineless wimps, looking for their next sex partner, there would be no government buildings standing in California, and probably no where else either.

Was that simple enough?

Anonymous age 67

March 22, 2010 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I counseled an estimated 1,600+ divorced men from 1984 till 1993, including suicide counseling.

As I see it, men in the US, in fact anywhere in the Anglosphere, have one of four choices.

1. Get the Hell out, which I have done. It is much nicer than most of you think. Yeah, daily life is harder, and not as comfortable nor clean. But, the Founders of the US, the people buried in those graves which seem to be churning this morning, talked of effeminate luxury. Living like this makes me feel like a man, instead of a woman with male sex organs, which is what most men in the US are.

2. Commit suicide. There are in my opinion two types of suicide. One is some sort of depression, perhaps a chemical imbalance. The other I call circumstantial, that means a woman; the courts; the government agencies; other men; create a situation where a man simply cannot live any more. I consider each and everyone of these suicides to be murder, with all the parties I listed as accomplices, including other men who will not help each other.

3. Buy kneepads. Get the best money will buy, because they are going to see heavy use. This is the choice most men make.

4. Hit the streets. This will happen when elephants fly. Corrie ten Boom wrote when the Nazis first entered Holland, the first year they did nothing, but emit propaganda, until they were sure there would be no resistance, then they implemented the pogrom in Holland as well.

When the first judge issued an order that a wife's adultery had nothing to do with child custody nor alimony nor child support payments nor property settlement and you guys did nothing, they knew they could do anything to you without resistance. This health care bill passed for the same reason. All talk and no real resistance no matter how brazen they are.

If I looked out the window and saw 500,000 men with scythes; pitchforks; torches; sledge hammers; and crow bars headed for the government buildings, I'd join them. I am not going to sacrifice myself for a bunch of spineless wimps. I am here in rural Mexico, living a good life. Enjoy your future in the USSA.

Anonymous age 67

March 22, 2010 10:32 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
The subjugation of once-free men has been done like the proverbial slow boiling a frog. If you do it a little at a time the frog is not aware of each incremental change, and can be slowly boiled to death. The destruction of America and our men has been going on for more than a century and a half. Each new generation assumes that the way it was when they were born is just "what's always been" so they don't rebel. A little more turn on the ratchet seems tolerable. If it were done all at once it would cause a massive revolution, but incrementally they can kill all the men.

March 22, 2010 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 1995, I erroneously predicted concentration camps for divorced men within 5 years. It didn't happen, but a couple years later, a few states actually proposed them. My theory was the C/s goons realized if they went that far, the truth that in fact there are almost no deadbeats at all, (employed men have the c/s taken out of their checks, it's impossible for them not to pay when they have the money,) would get out, so they backed off.

It is coming, and if the Huns don't save us, there will be a holocaust directed against men. If you think Bob is joking or exaggerating, you are one ignorant fool.

What Bob says is right on. I learned over the years a major part of the problem is all men think, "I am special and different. All men but me are rapists and wife-beaters and pedophiles, so I don't care what happens to them. I, unlike all other men, am special and different. It will never happen to me."

As Bob said, I also did not do much. In 1983, ten years after my divorce, I visited Mexico with my Mexican wife. Her brother drove me up into the mountains, and we saw a group of women in the river, skirts hiked up, washing clothes on the rocks, while their kids played in the water. All these women had big smiles on their face, and obviously were enjoying life, though they also obviously were very poor. Right now, today, if you were here, (Please don't come) I could walk with you a few minutes and show you women on the rocks washing clothes just like that, and they would all have big smiles when they saw me.

When I went back to the States, I saw a woman, a totally pissed off look on her face, driving a big, new Cadillac into the mall. I realized then there was something very wrong in the US. One year later, I was in my public activism stage of my life.

Anonymous age 67

Sorry to be off topic, Bob, but it is so much fun.

March 22, 2010 1:34 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
The feminist government does not have "concentration camps" for fathers yet, but they have brought back debtor's prisons. The English debtors prisons were abhorrent to Americans at the time of our revolution which is why the Constitution requires bankruptcy process instead of prison. Georgia was largely settled by debtors who were exported to the wilderness. Despite being completely illegal by the primary law of our nation, the criminals in government are currently holding an estimated 500,000 fathers in debtor's prisons. Some have been in prison more than 10 years.

March 22, 2010 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I well understand. But, at least one mid-western state in the mid to late 90's actually proposed what they called work camps for divorced fathers, which is what the Germans called the concentration camps.

Note that under the law both parents are responsible for the support of the children. The state happily takes over mommy's legal responsibility, and says dad has to pay them back.

I do not understand why any man is still in the US without at least a tentative plan for getting the Hell out, I really don't.

Anonymous age 67

March 22, 2010 11:07 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

In a traditional family and society a man only has a moral obligation to support the children of his wife. When he promises marriage he accepts obligation to support her children. A whore's bastards are her moral responsibility. Our femiNazi government's war on marriage taken away the right of men not to promise marriage and support for her children. Under femiNazi law there is no distinction between good wives and whores, between good children and bastards.

In a traditional moral society it is understood that a man supports his children by providing an extra plate at his table and a bed for the child to sleep. If a woman took his children she accepted HER responsibility to support them. In this femiNazi culture they bind him into slaver to PAY the bitch who destroyed HIS family.

There is nothing moral or right about the enslavement of men and the negation of marriage. A man's responsibility today is to destroy all feminists and their femiNazi government.

March 23, 2010 7:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>A whore's bastards are her moral responsibility.

That is spot on. I just remembered a tale my dad told my brother. He was born around 1907, so his brothers and sisters were from that approximate era.

He had a slightly younger sister who became for a time the mistress of a married man. I am guessing this was early Depression days.

One year he went at Christmas to visit her and her two children, taking a small bag of oranges with him as a gift.

To his horror, not only were there no presents for the kids, but also no food.

He told my brother from that time he kept them at least supplied with basic foods.

Somehow, she found a man to marry her and eventually became a respectable woman. I liked her. But, while she was viewed with some accuracy as a whore, she indeed was viewed as solely responsible for their support.

Sad on an individual basis, but it motivated women to find the husband before the children. Today we pay women to be whores.

Anonymous age 67

March 27, 2010 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Child Pornography: Is it wrong for men to view it if they like it? If it satisfies a desire? Why get arrested for having it on their computer?

***

A man was arrested, charged with raping and murdering a Florida girl, age 7:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-somer-thompson-murder-charges-filed-20100326,0,1490190.story

Seems this man was first nabbed on child porn charges. He swears he didn't murder that kid, but will he get a fair trial?

March 27, 2010 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clay County Sheriff Rick Beseler said detectives used DNA evidence, witnesses and statements from Harrell himself to solve the case."

If they indeed have "supporting DNA evidence", whatever that means, a fair trial will put him away the rest of his life.

I am not saying they really have DNA evidence. That is what trials are for.

When there is a body, with evidence of violence, we can assume there was murder, not sure I am saying this correctly.

If there was murder, then someone did it. The question is who?

A dead body with DNA, if that is true, is a far cry from the thousands of false sex abuse charges filed every year, with no physical or other evidence at all that any crime occurred. At least half of those charges are false, some studies show that sex abuse charges during divorce are false way more than half. In the 80's it was closer to 85% false during divorce.

In those false charges,there is no evidence any crime was committed. A perfect example was the Duke/Nifong case, where not only was there evidence of any crime at all, Nifong knew there was no crime committed, but kept on going for a conviction.

In the case of a violently murdered girl, the only question is who did it, but there definitely was a crime committed.

I do not have any knowledge whether looking at child porn leads to child abuse or murder. I am pretty sure anyone who feels a need to view child porn is well outside the norm, and in a trial, even without DNA, there is going to be a strong prejudice. Some things are probably not wise to do.


Anonymous age 67

March 27, 2010 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hidden camera shows woman beating a little boy in her care:

http://www.news4jax.com/video/22883833/index.html

March 28, 2010 6:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One year he went at Christmas to visit her and her two children, taking a small bag of oranges with him as a gift.

To his horror, not only were there no presents for the kids, but also no food."

Where was the children's father in this? Not only did he choose to have an affair while already married and father bastards, but couldn't be bothered to provide a plate at his table and a bed in which for them to sleep? What a guy. Somewhat less than "moral" in every way it would seem. And yet the woman gets all the blame.

March 28, 2010 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women commit at least 56% of child abuse, including maiming and death, but excluding hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. When you try to discuss that greater amount of child abuse by women, with man-haters, they immediately start making excuses of every kind.

I did not watch the video for two reasons.

First, I would want to do bad things to her, but cannot, so it is better not to get upset for no useful purpose.

Second, I well know women are more abusive then men are.

By the way, the person least likely to injure a child is the child's biological father. Of the 44% of child abuse done by men, the vast majority is by other men slut mommy brings into the house after tossing out their father.

Evidence shows that from the moment of conception, children do better in the care and custody of their father, whether sole custody or as part of a two parent family.

When my grandson was born around 4 years ago, the female nurse told my SIL it was his job to protect the baby from his mother. I am not making this up.

Anonymous age 67

March 28, 2010 8:42 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (March 28, 2010 8:40 AM)
A man has a moral obligation to support the children he agrees to support by marriage. He has no moral obligation to claim or support the bastards of a whore, a woman who is not married. Instead of whining about the bastard's father, a moral society would loudly condemn the unmarried whore who produces bastards. Shame on her.

March 28, 2010 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He has no moral obligation to claim or support the bastards of a whore, a woman who is not married.

So if a married or unmarried man has an affair he has no need to worry about the bastards he fathers. Nice attitude. It plays well in the inner cities where nearly all births are out of wedlock and "fathers" are absent from the lives of children. I would have said "their" children but I guess if they aren't married to the women then the kids belong strictly to the women and single-motherhood is what you think is right. Let the woman fend for herself and her kids, men walk away from responsibility, and let the kids think fatherlessness is the norm. Great thinking and it works so well in the black community where it's been like that for generations now. I guess all the correlations between lack of fathers and poverty, crime, lack of educational achievement, mental illness etc. has nothing to do with men and their behavior, just women. If the man doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions that's ok just dump it all on women and walk away and the kids will be ok without fathers. Cool! Soon the whole country will be just like Detroit. No fathers = prosperity for all, just like in Detroit with one of the highest crime rates and lowest incomes in the country. Just absolve men of all responsibility and the kids take care of themselves so well. And this is all 100% women's fault for not forcing a man to marry them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The day I have nothing more to offer my kids than a plate and a cot is the day they put me in the ground. Fatherhood is damned important for everyone. The man, the woman and most especially the children. Telling men it's ok to shirk their responsibility as fathers is bullshit. Men should be a part of their children's lives at every step. And it's men's responsibility to keep their zippers up as much as women's to keep their legs together. That's called "adulthood." Walking away from children he sired outside his marriage is cowardly and contemptible. Men who do this are scum. My kids, my responsibility just as much as their mother's.

I've seen Detroit. When men walk away from fatherhood everyone suffers.

March 28, 2010 3:55 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
A man is responsible for all of his children, the children of the wife he agreed to marry. He has no moral obligation to a whore's bastard.

The feminist war on marriage has created far too many bastards. That is a shame. It is immoral and evil. A good woman would arrange for a husband to take responsibility for her children.

March 28, 2010 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob - know any good women?

March 28, 2010 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the reasons men have no remaining rights is because so many men are wimps, who can't see a bad woman anywhere. No matter how bad a woman is, they always find some way to blame other men. So, they support bad women who abuse and destroy good men, and imagine they are some superior kind of man.

So, Anonymous, do you know any bad women?

Anonymous age 67

March 28, 2010 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know(n) several horrible bitches but also many truly good women. Same with men.

March 29, 2010 6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. Most of us know a lot more bad women than good women in the Anglosphere. That's because there are a lot more bad women than good women in the Anglosphere.

Average age of beginning sexual activity, somewhere around ten years before marriage. Swell. Nearly a year before her age is no longer a legal reason to throw her various and multiple lovers in prison, but nothing happens to the poor, sweet, dearie. Wonderful. Women who marry have had an average of around 11 or 12 lovers before finding a fool to marry them. Real sweeties! And, this is average!!! There are college girls who have over 100 lovers a year during their college stay. Fantastic!

Women are responsible for nearly 80% of all divorce in the Anglosphere, and studies by the feminists themselves show that most divorce is not a result of an unhappy marriage. Cupcake simply wants another man. And, divorce is not rare; 40% of first marriages end up in divorce. In California, there are 78 divorces every year for 100 marriages. Also mostly generated by women with no valid reason except sexual lust for another man. Yes, indeedy, you are defending the honor of women who don't have any. Great job. Please carry on.

That isn't because women are inherently bad, because they are not. It is because men like you can't tell good women from bad women, unless they are serial murderers, and tend to think most men -- except yourself, naturally -- are evil, and any woman with a problem is victim of an evil man.

This implies that the belief of many men is women are mindless creatures good for sex, but lack intelligence to know right from wrong. This is not sensitivity to the wants and needs of women; this is the worst possible insult a man can give a woman. In other words, extreme sexism.

I believe women are rational beings who know right from wrong, but choose wrong because men like you fight successfully to free them from any consequences for their evil behavior.

Thus, you have helped build a culture where a woman with 8 kids from 4,321 men is considered to be a good woman.

And, a culture where whores are considered victims of evil men, not of their own evil behavior.

I am saying the culture in the Anglosphere encourages women to be whores, and men like you like it that way.

Here in Mexico, women are not paid a monthly check for being whores. In this culture, it is the men who are rewarded for bad behavior, and the women are kicked around for bad behavior. And, to be honest, because men aren't punished for bad behavior (just as women in the US are not) women are also kicked around without bad behavior, just as men in the US are kicked around without bad behavior.

Not only aren't men in the Anglosphere as bad as most women say they are. Most women in the Anglosphere don't deserve the average American man.


And, the women in Mexico; Thailand; PI; and many other countries all know it. That is why when AM get off the airplane in one of those countries, they are besieged by attractive young women (not all of whom are good women, of course.)

One of the men I convinced to GTHO moved to Italy. His honey is a lovely girl from the Ukraine. She told him American women do not deserve American men; they deserve Russian men. Hee, hee.

Anonymous age 67

March 29, 2010 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fatherhood is damned important for everyone. The man, the woman and most especially the children."

Anon, I wish my own father had shared your attitude. Instead he agreed with Bob and walked away before I was born. Fortunately my Mom was always there for me and raised me well. The only man in my life was my baseball coach but he was a good man and taught the team that being a man was more than having a dick. He taught us that responsibility was a choice, and that real men choose to accept it.

My biological father actually had the gall to try and come back into my life when I was in my 20s and make himself a part of the family. I was happy to show him the door. He's an asshole not a man, and I don't want him anywhere near my own children. My father-in-law is all the grandfather they need.

March 30, 2010 10:45 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: Yes, its a shame that your mother did not have the moral decency to arrange for a marriage for her children before whelping a bastard. And its a shame that she raised you on feminist misandry, blaming your father for her failures.

Your feminist indoctrination is demonstrated by your use of the feminist misandry term "biological father" as if there is any other kind of father. Feminists and manginas use that terminology to pretend that her latest fuck is equal to a real genuine father.

I'm sorry for you that she messed up your life so badly. It will be much harder for you to act manly with women or children because you had no father in your life. Shame on her.

March 30, 2010 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"act manly with women or children"

... how does Bob envision that?

March 30, 2010 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I am reminded of a story from the era of conspicuous consumption in the early 20th Century.

It was reported that a man went to look at yachts, and found one he liked. He asked the salesman how much it cost. The salesman said, "Sir, if you must ask how much it costs, you can't afford it."

The first time I heard that story, I thought it was extremely arrogant. I learned later that in fact yachts were so expensive that the only people who could afford them were the people so stinking rich they knew without asking they could afford it, so didn't even bother to ask the price.

In the same sense, I suggest anyone who has to ask what "act manly with women or children" means, is not capable of understanding it.

And, your general tone towards women, and towards other men, supports that suggestion.

Anonymous age 67

March 30, 2010 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>He taught us that responsibility was a choice, and that real men choose to accept it.

Good sounding words. But, when those words are twisted to cause men to support evil, slutty, vicious, treacherous women, and to pay a woman's house payment and living costs while she is sleeping in that house with another man, I for one find those words to transcend self-destruction and stupidity.

It is the basic nature of men to work hard to support their families when they are their families. When a man comes home to a smile and a friendly greeting, and is made to feel as if he is the man of the family, most men will work hard for that family.

The fact that when he realized your mom was not going to be there, he came trying to build a relationship with you, tells me your mom was a toxic fiend, who deliberately drove him away.

And, furthermore, the fact there was never another man in her life agrees with that.

He wasn't in your life because she was unbearable, and didn't want him or any other man in her life.

Like the man who couldn't afford a yacht because he had to ask the price, you are not capable of accepting that he acted as he did, because that is what your mother wanted. And, she wanted you to hate him.

Yet, you seem to hold yourself out as some sort of superior man who measures himself by how obedient and servile he is to women. That is not the same as being responsible.


Anonymous age 67

March 30, 2010 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back to runaway acceleration. I read a day or two ago an article (I hope it wasn't in this blog, heh, heh) by a man who helped investigate the problem some years ago with, I think it was Audi, not sure. And, it was always on automatic transmission.

He said in every case it became apparent that people would get into the car, and not align their body properly with the controls. So, when they pulled the car into drive, and thought they were pushing on the brake, they were actually pushing on the throttle. Up to ten seconds with full throttle until they hit something solid, and swore the brakes failed.

He said they invented the interlock which requires the brake to be pressed before the transmission can be removed from PARK, but granted all car makers the rights to use it. Immediately the problem went away.

I am not saying this is the Toyota problem, that is not consistent. I do not yet know what the real problem is. I am just reporting on the history of similar problems.

And,there was also a news item of a man who modified his expensive car for remote starting, and bypassed the interlock system that prevents the starter from running when the car is in gear, or clutch depressed, whatever. He took the car to the shop, and when the service writer went to get his car, he hit what should have been the door unlock button on the remote, and the car took off and ran into a pond. He had been warned by many people not to do that.

Anonymous age 67

March 30, 2010 5:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Excellent advice Anonymous Age 67.

In the film "Fight Club" the lead character observed, "We are a generation of men raised by women." Our anonymous fellow who wants to know how to act manly is a man raised by women. He will not understand what being a man is all about because he has only female teaching to understand with.

March 30, 2010 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys remind me of a fellow in my department. A year or so ago he started having an affair with a younger woman even though his wife is gorgeous and he has three kids with her. When he bragged about lying to the girlfriend about having had a vasectomy some of us tried to warn him that he might want to rethink having unprotected sex with a woman he knew wasn't on the pill. He laughed it off saying he didn't want to wear a condom and she's Catholic and all that. Needless to say he got the girlfriend pregnant, the DNA test proved it was him, the gorgeous wife divorced him, the kids want nothing to do with him, and he blames everyone except himself. It's his ex-wife's fault, it's the girlfriend's fault, it's the lawyers' fault, the judge's fault, the kids' fault, everyone but his. Geez Carl maybe you shouldn't have lied about the vasectomy, or had the affair, or should just man up and take the consequences of your action. I guarantee if it had been his wife who'd had the affair and become pregnant outside of their marriage he'd have divorced her in a split second.

March 31, 2010 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't normally like to use the "L" word, but in this case, I must. The man you describe has nothing to do with me. I will not speak for Bob, but am betting the same thing is true for him.

There is not a word in anything I have written which says I am like that man, and you know it, which is why I am calling you a liar.

Of course, there is a possibility I am wrong, since 'men' raised by their mommies really aren't very smart as a rule.

As I said, you are not capable of understanding what a real man is and does. In this case, a real man keeps his promises to the best of his ability. Important promises like his wedding vows, unless and until he finds out his wife is a whore, in which case his vows are null and void.

So does a real woman keep her promises, but whores do not. Neither female whores, nor male whores. The man you described is a male whore.

But, this is to be expected of a 'man' raised by a woman. You learned by watching your mommy, and you are doing what she did when she got angry at someone. When she realized she was in the wrong and had nothing useful to say, she simply made up some nasty insult and said it.

It's called shaming language.

Your words had nothing to do with anything Bob and I said, it was just some meaningless insult you made up to try to have something negative to say to say to us, since you actually had nothing of value to say.
thing.

Though I have to say I appreciate your proving for all readers the accuracy of my statement that that having been raised by your mommy you are not even capable of understanding what a man is and does.


Anonymous age 67

March 31, 2010 7:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 67, were you raised entirely by your father?

April 01, 2010 8:22 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (March 31, 2010 4:30 PM)
Your feminist example is typical of misandrist females who blame the nearest available man for all of their faults and bad actions.
First, there was the slut who seduced and bred with a married man. BC pills have been provided to women (but not men) for 3 generations. Women have had sole and exclusive control over their fertility for 50 years. When she's out playing cum bucket every night she, and only she is responsible for making her WANTED child. She also has sole legal rights to abortion, abandonment or adoption. Blaming the man is naught but feminist denial and misandry.
Second, the wife has no reason to complain in a moral world. Her hisssy fit comes from feminist domination and control of men. She is willing to destroy her marriage and badly harm her children because her domination and control of the man is no longer total. Her lieyer and agent of Satan in black robes of hell share her evil destruction of home and family.
You evil feminazi blame the nearest man and excuse the whores and bitches who caused all the harm in the story you tell. Shame on you, and shame on the whores and bitches in your story.

April 01, 2010 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Age 67, why do you think you're responding only to one person? One of the comments above is mine not the guy with the absentee dad.

Bob, why blame the (Catholic) woman in the story of the adulterous married man and not the man as well? If she was Catholic it would be against her religion to use BC pills. She should have known not to get involved with a married man and she should have guessed that he was lying about the vasectomy since he was already lying to his wife, but she can't be blamed for following her religious beliefs.

If a married woman has an affair her husband is fully within his rights to divorce her. Same with a married man. His wife did nothing wrong by dumping him.

April 01, 2010 12:59 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
No amount of twisting Catholic religious values can justify your feminist misandry. If the adulterous slut had any intention to follow Catholic morality she would have found a nice husband and limited her fornicating and breeding to that of a good wife. Her "sin" is not assuaged by blaming a man for her decisions to make a bastard. All the "choice" about birth control, abortion, adoption, etc., have been reserved for women ONLY for half a century. Lets put responsibility where responsibility lies.

For the man it is much less of a sin to get some extra pussy. He is not bringing a new baby into the world. Catholic morality, and any sane moral code has always allowed men to use sluts or whores for occasional recreation. Her bastard is her moral responsibility.

The ex-wife had no reason to destroy her marriage other than arrogance and stupidity. The morals are different for men and women because men don't bring another baby into the family.

April 01, 2010 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>...were you raised entirely by your father?

Once again a question that would only be asked by a 'man' who was raised by a woman, and is thus incapable of knowing what a man is and does.

Or, a woman pretending to be a man.

Or, a troll.

Or, all three rolled into one which is most likely.

Not that you are capable of understanding it, but the importance of a father is for his son to observe manly behavior, and know what he must do as an adult. And, why he must do it.

Without that example, a boy cannot learn how to be a man. Just as you did not learn how to be a man, but a woman in a man's body.

A boy must hear and see that his father is a man, and why. In your case, your mother deliberately and maliciously taught you that your father was evil, and like any stupid, little kid who has only his mommy as a role model, you believed it without once thinking it through.

Your father (how do we know he really was your father? Whores lie about the fathers of their children, and tend to blame the ones most likely to have assets) most likely left because your mommy was so ornery no man could ever live with her, which is also the reason she never took another man. If he had been treated well by her, you'd have been raised to be a man, and you wouldn't be asking stupid questions like this.

This is proved by the fact that at the first opportunity to see you without her around, he came running, WHICH MEANS HE DID WANT TO CARE ABOUT YOU. Being a whore's son, you drove him off, and you think it is HE who has problems.

Furthermore, most people understand that women like your mother knew ahead of time she wanted a child without the father hanging around. If she had to, she would have filed false rape charges to drive him away. (Of course, maybe she did.) Instead she was just ornery enough no man could tolerate her, then told you over and over how evil he was that he never came to see you. This is what I call SINGLE MOM 101.

Anonymous, how much child support did he pay her over the years? In these cases, the women usually lie and say he never paid a cent, even though the slave chasers took the money from his pay check every week, and most of the stuff you had came from him.

In the late 70's, PLAYBOY magazine had an article written by a c/s official. He said one day a girl came to him, she had just become an adult, and asked where her father lived, he never sent a penny all her childhood, and she wanted to tell him what an evil beast he was. He asked her to come back in a week, and when she did, he handed her a whole packet of photocopies of checks, every week for her entire childhood, signed by the father, and the mother's endorsement on the back. Every week all her childhood. She left with blood in her eye, and it was her mother who was going to be the recipient of her anger. This is also Mommy 101.

If you weren't as evil and stupid as your mom, you would look up the man your mom claims is your dad, and have a man to man talk with him, and LISTEN to his side of things. I understand you'd have to be a man to do this, so of course it is a waste of time. Talk to his siblings if he has any and find out what happened from someone other than your mommy.

I am always willing to answer intelligent questions, please no more childish, stupid questions.

Anonymous age 67

April 01, 2010 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>Age 67, why do you think you're responding only to one person? One of the comments above is mine not the guy with the absentee dad.

Ah, more than one person asking stupid questions. This is also so easy any person with the intelligence of a pigeon can get it. If you want to make it clear who you are, you give some indication. I cannot see IP's, so if you give no indication who you are, I can presume anything I am/

That is why I use an anonymous identifier. Everyone knows which one I am as much as if I had used my biological name.

Simple, wasn't it?

Anonymous age 67

April 01, 2010 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>The morals are different for men and women because men don't bring another baby into the family.

While I have much respect for Bob's views, I am not always 100% in agreement. In this case, I think the man in the story is a male whore.

I do agree men are much more easily seduced into stupid things than women are.

My beloved niece in Mexico City and I once discussed this. I told her that stupid women in the US said it was as hard for a woman to have sex with another man as it was for a man with another woman.

She said she once told her husband if he wanted to play around, she could have three affairs for each one of his. Which is nonsense, because she is gorgeous, and could have 20 affairs for each one he has.

There is a reason for this difference. Young man are told from almost birth, not only by their mommies but other women as well, that women are the gate-keepers for sex. Any other mode is rape. We hear it over and over, in many different ways that woman are the gate-keepers and we are never to violate their decision on sex.

Sounds good on the surface, but what it means is when a woman opens the gate, that is initiates sex, men are thus essentially conditioned they MUST accept without thought. So, they do.

Part of my counseling men has been to teach them they MUST be the gate-keepers as well. Just because a woman shows her delightfully naked body is not a reason to have sex with her. IMO, this is part of advanced manhood, as opposed to being indoctrinated by our mommies that women are the gate-keepers.

Anonymous age 67

April 01, 2010 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>If she was Catholic it would be against her religion to use BC pills

This is a woman's argument. It is also against the Catholic Church teachings to commit adultery. In fact, in most nations statistics show Catholic women use bc pills at the same rate as non-Catholics.

Bob has a very good point. Women have every option that men don't have. The morning after pill. Abortion. Adoption. Yet, you women want to blame men for the results when you make bad decisions. Proving beyond any reasonable doubt that women believe men are superior to women.

Anonymous age 67

April 01, 2010 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So its ok for a woman to get some extra dick as long as she doesn't get knocked up and bring a baby into the family? They'll love that.

April 01, 2010 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob you are incorrect about official Catholic teaching on adultery (or any other violation of the Commandments). Adultery is a mortal sin regardless of the offender's gender.

April 01, 2010 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are correct that the Catholic Church views adultery by either sex as a mortal sin.

Did Bob say he is Catholic? I do not remember if he did or not. If not, he is not bound by the views of the Catholic Church -- the church of boy stickers.

In fact, this is his blog so he can define sin however he wants, and if you or I don't like it our choice is to either take a flying leap in the lake, or perhaps take a flying leap in the lake.

However, this whole invention of equal culpability is all part of the feminist EKWALITTEE movement.

EKWALITEE means women own 85% of all the money in the country, also spend over 85% of all the money spent, while doing only ~40% or less of all the work, AND STILL WHINE THEY ARE BEING EXPLOITED; SUBJUGATED; AND UNDERPAID.

It also means when a woman has sex, if SHE gets pregnant, she can have an abortion or not as she pleases. She can keep the baby if she wants, and sit on her fat rear-end and get money from the government to fulfill her EQUAL legal obligation to support her children, while he is hounded to repay the government for her failure to comply with her legal obligation to support her child.

Of course, at any time she can give up the child for adoption, and the government will help her hide the fact from the man, so he cannot obtain custody.

And, though the child is given up for adoption, there is no legal guarantee that c/s folks are notified to stop collecting money from him.

The truth is, women get pregnant and men don't. The whole c/s system is intended to change the rules so men get pregnant and women don't. That is, men are to be held to their responsibilities and women are not.

From time memorial, women are told, "You can get pregnant and men can't. So, you have to take total responsibility for your sexual conduct. Period."

That is still true today. It's just we let women believe lies.

When I hear some married man say, "We are pregnant," it is hard not to upchuck in his lap. No, he isn't pregnant, she is. He's not even sure it's his baby unless he is stupid.

Also, men and women aren't equally sexually active. The modern woman justifies her whoredom by saying, "Men are doing it, too."

Most men aren't doing it, too. The Nice Guys, the ones who follow the rules as best they can in hopes of a wife and a family are viewed by most young women as B-O-R-I-N-G!!

So, somewhere between 80 and 95% of young women have sex with somewhere between 5 and 20% of non-boring male whores. Which is why there is a much higher frequency of STD's among women today.

Then, after bedding these male whores, as they approach 30 years old, they decide it's time to get one of the Nice Guys they have been rejecting. They join a church, buy some nice Christian dearie dresses, and pretend to be so pure.

Though marriage is going away, once in a while some women still trap a sucker. They marry, they get their kids, then they get bored again, and dump their children's father, run off with a male whore again, and expect to get money in the mail from the good man they cuckolded.

That is exactly what happened to the good Catholic woman, the one who could commit adultery, but could not practice birth control because it was a sin. She had a good husband, but he was boring, so she had an affair. With an exciting married male whore.

Exciting male whores do things like lie about having a vasectomy, as well as having an affair though married. That is part of what makes them exciting and what attracted the female whore to him. What a total surprise! NOT!


Anonymous age 67

April 02, 2010 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure if I identified previous posting as mine. I had 3935 characters and blog rejected it as being greater than 4096 characters.

Here are some nice statistics for the dearies in our midst:

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)

Many of you whores are not going to be able to trap an idiot into marriage. Hee, hee.

The part I like best about these stats is they are dropping faster and faster. It took three years to drop from 39.9 to 39.2 and only one year to drop from 39.2 to 37.4. It will perhaps bounce around at times, but since 1972, it has gone only down.

This is a wild guess, but my theory is this is happening, not because women are turning their backs on evil, worthless man as your feminists claim, but because American women are among the worst wives in the world.

Anonymous age 67

April 02, 2010 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, it looks like this thread has drifted into what the feminists call the double standard for sexual behavior. Why not do an entire blog post about it?

For the religious record, in the accepted New Testament Jesus never addressed homosexuality but did, repeatedly, speak of adultery and never in an approving way.

Anonymous Age 67, reading through some of the posts I think you may be conflating some of the posters. The man with the abandoning father posted that he wasn't contacted until he was in his 20s. That doesn't sound like the man was trying too hard to be there for his son. As for the married man who lost everything over a foolish affair, it's hard to feel bad for him if he in fact did lie to his girlfriend about surgical sterilization. That kind of behavior is unacceptable even in foolish teenagers, much less in a grown man. If his wife divorced him and his legitimate children feel betrayed that is his own fault and not theirs.

I would like to see a lengthy blog post about the so-called double standard Bob.

April 02, 2010 10:38 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Bob has been working on a new topic on marriage and morality.

April 02, 2010 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous anonymous, I stand by my comment on not giving that father a chance to tell his side. I have seen enough Parental Alienation Syndrome that it gets to be pretty obvious. If it were rare, my viewpoint would be different, but it is not rare; it is so common it is surprising when it doesn't happen.

Refusing to hear the father's side, we don't even know he knew where his kid lived, and in fact may have come as soon as he heard the kid was married and away from the evil fiend. We also have no idea just how she conducted herself to drive him away, or in fact even if she actually did that. The fact she had no more man in her life is a great clue, though.

It is the American way to hear both sides before deciding, and this simpleton has refused to do so. He is thus plainly un-American, the ultimate loser. One can only hope he gets to be divorced and also see his kids alienated. It will be not only just, but also good for his miserable soul.

My guess is, you are either a woman or a man who has not experienced Parental Alienation Syndrome, and thus simply do not know what you are talking about, and therefore assume you know more about it than anyone else does.

As far as the male whore who got a married woman pregnant, I sure didn't defend him. but, I also stand pat on my viewpoint, which is based on simple reality, that women do indeed have a greater responsibility to control their sexual conduct than men do. This is based on simple biology, and the fact that women can get pregnant and men can't.

For 10,000 years of recorded history, this concept worked well MOST OF THE TIME; and only failed when a woman was a whore, as Bob has so plainly said many times. Only when a bunch of man-hating lesbian feminists started telling everyone how and what to think, and that it was okay for women to be whores, did it become expected that men had equal responsibility.

If I am conflating the posters, that is strictly their decision. It is obvious to anyone who is even half as smart as a rock that on a blog like this anyone who posts anonymously gives up any right to be separated from anyone else who posts anonymously. If someone wants to be distinguished from some other anonymous poster, it is his/her job to supply some sort of distinguishing note in the posting.

This is so simple a little child can understand it. So, what is your problem?

And, having declined to supply that information, stop whining about being conflated. It's not my job to figure out who is who. Nor do I especially care. On this blog, one anonymous anonymous is usually as screwed up in the head as another. If you care, it's your job. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions, not blaming others for your refusal to take responsibility.

Anonymous age 67 (This is how you know it's me. Simple, isn't it?)

April 02, 2010 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me add here that most women raised with a father's influence well understand that they get pregnant and men don't, and have also been taught by their dads that they are to take responsibility for their own actions, rather than doing whatever they want, then blaming the man who takes what she gives.

They also are much more likely to understand what is normal male sexuality, and thus more likely to avoid doing sexually provocative things involving casual sex.

There are statistics on this. Women who are closer to their dads are less likely to end up pregnant; less likely to end up divorced. If you want, you can find them; it's not my job to teach you what I've learned over the last 50 years.

Anonymous age 67

April 02, 2010 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A church (Catholic or otherwise) must teach Bible morality. Adultery is a mortal sin:

Deuteronomy 5:18. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

(i.e., the Ten Commandments of Jewish and Christian moral law, not just a "Catholic rule" to follow).

April 03, 2010 6:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>A church (Catholic or otherwise) must teach Bible morality. Adultery is a mortal sin:

>>Deuteronomy 5:18. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

>>(i.e., the Ten Commandments of Jewish and Christian moral law, not just a "Catholic rule" to follow).

While you slept, we got a brand new concept in the US. It's called religious freedom. No one has to be Catholic. No one has to accept Biblical morality nor Ten Commandments nor Christian or Jewish morality as their personal morality.

My experience has been when MEN have the Bible used in a false manner to enslave and abuse them, they eventually reject it all, as listed in the previous paragraph.

I know of almost no divorced men who still go to a church of any kind. I concur with that decision. Women cause nearly 80% of all divorce, usually with their own adultery. Yet, the Bible (mis)quoting Christians come running and blame the man.

"If he had been right with God, his wife could not have sinned." Hohohohahahaheeheehee.

What a pack of morons. The Bible says that no where at all. It isn't in there, but they imagine it is. With their King Satan's thumb on the page, he gets them all balled up down in Ephesians, so they don't look at Genesis, where it is explained very well.

I have a moron son-in-law like that. I wondered for a long time how Christians could be doing Satan's work and still be saved.

I finally read the answer in the Screwtape Letters. The demon basically says we will tell humans if they do Satan's work it will be God's work, and they will think they will be saved by doing those things.

BUT THEY WILL NOT BE SAVED.

I finally realized that is the answer. Most Christians in the US are busy doing Satan's work, destroying divorced men whose wives committed adultery (which by the way the Bible says is grounds for divorce) while blaming the men for her sin.

Very few Christians in the US are saved, in my opinion. I can't name them, because I don't know individually what is in their heart, but I can say statistically most so-called Christians in the US are helping destroy men and are not saved at all. It is impossible to have Satan and Jesus in your heart at the same time, and they have chosen Satan because he lets them kick innocent divorced men in the privates.

Here's how bad it is. My daughter's Baptist church (I better explain this for the Christians so they don't get confused; my daughter's husband is my son-in-law) rejected a very good Christian man for deacon because he was divorced many years ago, and did not even investigate to see if his wife had committed adultery.

Wait, sports fans. There is more. My daughter was divorced some years ago, and they let her work in the nursery with impressionable little children. Read the part about the little children and the millstone.

I know Christians and they are indeed a scurvy lot. One of their silly arguments will be, "But, Screwtape Letters is not inspired."

True. Neither is the Toyota Shop Manual for my Sienna, but it sure helps me troubleshoot my car.

Anonymous age 67


Bob must be in a good mood. Usually when some crazed religious nut starts (mis)quoting the Bible, he deletes their garbage and cusses them out. Maybe he will be back later for the cussing out part, heh, heh.

April 03, 2010 9:11 PM  
Blogger David said...

Oh, nonsense.

The worst car I ever owned was a 1989 Chevy Beretta. The damn thing was in the shop constantly. The engine turned over about only 75% of the time.

The best cars I ever owned were Toyotas. Literally never in the shop - never. They ran 200,000 miles without ever stalling or failing to start. And the interior remained intact under the hardest use. No upholstery falling off the doors after one year.

True, you can't tinker with Toyotas, if tinkering is what you're into. But I am not a tinkerer. Guess what? Like millions of people, I look on a vehicle as a device to get me from one place to another with little or no trouble. Not as a toy to spend all weekend working on and "adjusting."

A tinkerer is overjoyed when something is wrong with his car. It's an opportunity to get under the hood and "work on it"!

A regular person is seriously inconvenienced and pissed when something is wrong with his car. It's a substantial blow to his activities...which do not include spending every other weekend in an AutoZone.

Hobbyists may get deep satisfaction out of tinkering, but busy people with jobs and lives don't. We want from our vehicles dependability and longevity, end of story.

June 23, 2010 1:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home