April 04, 2005

some excuse

has the blue marble gone mad?

i don't understand the argument of this utter tosh brought up by the boffin. or probably a sad attempt by said boffin to perpetuate her "beliefs".

it's ok to have more than one partner at any one time - regardless for sexual or emotional purposes - because they make one a better lifeform? like bringing different perspectives to relationships? and it's in the human dna to love more than one lifeform? and that whomever doesn't agree to such way of life should somehow accept it if their mates or family do it?

so is this one of the latest "trends" to attack the sanctity of marriage?

methinks:
1. it's logically unsound - and morally wrong
2. it's simply an excuse to bonk or flirt around
3. it says alot about the follower's state of mind - or none whatsoever, both "state" and "mind"
4. the fact that it started in the U S of A doesn't suprise me the least - weirder things happened over there before

so isn't this a good reason to wipe out the human race before they harm themselves further?

as enscribed by the letter b @ April 4, 2005 06:58 AM

Don't get me started on chinese medicine either!

*gets rifle*

as blahed by Miles @ April 8, 2005 07:20 PM

i heard it off somewhere and it has now somewhat become part of my vocab that they can't go beyond two syllabi. take my real name for example, especially with an L somewhere. it screwed up their tongues. thats why i had to shorten it to just two syllabi instead of four as i just didn't want them to mangle my otherwise beautiful : ahem : name.

don't get me started on eating dogs as well. oh and did you know that they used to breed like rats before the legitimate gangsters put a stop to it with the "stop at two" campaign? and did you know that they used to give away their baby daughters - if they were born in the "inauspicious" year of the *tiger - to the malays and indians just because they were deemed unlucky? like doom and hell fire would struck the family?

not only that they would also give away the youngest children if there wasn't enough to feed the family. it makes you wonder why the fuck they breed in the first place and heartless enough to give away their bairn. and it was known that they dropped off their baby daughters back in the 19th century till as late as before the 1980's at the doorstep of the convent?

yellow plague indeed.

* deemed inauspicious yet they eat tiger parts. and bones made into tonic. hypocrites.

as blahed by the letter b @ April 8, 2005 04:58 PM

I hate the way they just breed so damn quickly and totally fuck up the ecosystem in the east, it's almost becoming an monoculture. The amount of forest that has been chopped down for chinese rice paddies... grr!

Don't like the way their society is structured either, what with boys being more important and female children often being neglected or just plain killed as soon as they're born.

Primitive people, in my ever so informed opinion. Role on bird flu.

Never had the misfortune to see one eating though, although the owners of the local chinese takeaway completely don’t understand what "vegetarian" or "without meat" mean.

Don't get me started on eating dogs.

as blahed by Miles @ April 7, 2005 01:53 PM

besides the evil slitty eyes that seem to meld into their mugs when they erm, "smile". how in the world they were cursed with those features is beyond me.

talk of which, did you see how they eat? they chomp on their food with their gobs wide open and in the process making those horrendous chomp chomp noises? and when you told them they are an embrassment, they look at you and then spewed forth the following:
1.".. i take this as a personaRR attack.."
2.".. you are veLy Lacist.."
3.".. this is how *we* chinese peopRe eat.. blah yadda yawn... we show appLeciation to the wondeLfuR food cooked by our mah-derr [ie: mother].."

and the food in reference is anything that moves as we know it. maybe that explain their evil slitty eyes. but of course not all chinks or singaporeans of chinese ethnicity have slitty eyes nor talk like the above. and some are in fact likeable.

oooh, will i be branded as a hypocrite for putting up that wee "disclaimer"?

as blahed by the letter b @ April 7, 2005 03:14 AM

Bah, you're perfectly in your right to hate chinks as well, yellow plague if you ask me.

as blahed by Miles @ April 7, 2005 03:05 AM

yes, i'd prefer to call 'em yanks. she's not the first one i encountered telling me that i should display tolerance and other such bollocks like they do.

apart from shoving down our throats their brand of democracy, way of life and sensibilities; common sense and manners seem to escape them. any surprise there their soldiers were being killed in greater numbers in iraq?

as blahed by the letter b @ April 7, 2005 03:03 AM

Did we just have an american there...? Policing the world AND everyone's thoughts now?

as blahed by Miles @ April 6, 2005 03:46 PM

good riddance. no further comments necessary from my end.

as blahed by the letter b @ April 6, 2005 05:08 AM

"The dark side"? Are you speaking of the non-monagamous, or of gays and lesbians? Why bother to add your disclaimer "I don't meant to sound discriminatory towards or anti-bi's, lesbians, and gays..." if you're not going to then say something discriminitory toward lesbians and gays? I don't mean to attack you, but I thought I'd check out a fellow Munuvanian and comment upon what I read in your most recent post. Upon your suggestion, I read a couple of months of archives, but didn't come across much about gays at all, except for something about the defininition of "sissies/ponces" and a bit about gay penguins. I did manage to find several references to "chinks" however. Obviously we don't seem to have the same outlook on life, and I won't bother visiting in the future. Sorry to bother you--won't happen again.

as blahed by ensie @ April 6, 2005 05:02 AM

well if you read my post carefully, there is no implication *whatsoever* that i lump each and every bi, lesbian and gay together with the polyamorous. And it so happens that those who practice them so far are.

Not reading my other posts before this and then calling me ignorant clearly shows your making a quick judgement without knowing what sort of person I am. You know, pot and kettle?

as blahed by the letter b @ April 6, 2005 02:54 AM

Please don't lump all polyamorous folks in with gay, lesbian, and bisexuals, just because they all fall outside of your view of "normal". Linking any of them together as though they belong together is ridiculous. It shows serious ignorance to do so. Obviously heterosexuals are just as capable of hooking up outside of monogomous relationships, and they do.

as blahed by ensie @ April 6, 2005 02:16 AM

indeed, given that we are living in the internet age, such flawed beliefs may even be touted and/or defended by their closet singaporean brethren - whose numbers are on the rise.

currently in the blogosphere, some 19-year-old harridan not only boasts about her many lovers [both men with long-term partners and equally screwedup teenaged chavette's] but also reminding her misled readers [mainly men what else?] daily how sought after she is. it makes you wonder how come she isn't stricken by some STDs by now. i'd rather she gets it than go about harming others.

i don't mean to sound discriminatory towards or anti-bi's, lesbians and gays, but having witnessed how an ex-fling turning to the dark side, i can't help it but think some of these people [especially those who were not born gay or lesbian] are pure evil. or worse, the devil incarnate.

as blahed by the letter b @ April 5, 2005 11:17 AM

No doubt they are all happily spreading numerous nasty STD's in the name of love too. :humb: They'll wipe themselves out eventually. Hopefully they'll keep it all within the group but I doubt it.

as blahed by coffdrop @ April 5, 2005 08:37 AM
yer six pences' worth s'il vous plaît:









remember personal info?