Mommyism in the Workplace

I knew I was not the only one out there, and I would like to thank you for furthering the cause. You are to be commended. The whole notion of "Mommy Worship" in the workplace is a subject of debate long overdue.

How many non-breeders do you know that have been silent for too long? Too many! If you think that breeder is a harsh term, well let me tell you something. Fuck you and crusading Mommyist White Horse that you rode in on. The torment of of babies in the Corporate workplace and Mommy worship has a bane in the Workplace for the entirety of the Decade and a half that I have been in Corporate America, and I have seen repercussions put on the heads of those who have dared to speak out against it. So pardon my bitter ass if I don't pull my punches. Babies make me sick, Mommies make me sick, and the selfish, self centered little world of Mommy and Baby make me want to openly projectile vomit. Am I clear? Good! On with the Mommy bashing, or at least an honest effort to respond to the earlier diary point by point.

(Side note to the crybabies who will whine I should just post a comment, fuck you, this one is a pet peeve and I was the originator of the topic, if I want to further the debate, you will live. Get over it and get over yourself.) Now having quelled all whining, point by point response in the Anti Mommy Jihad....

The following are excerpts from the diary I was moved to write by. I shall now sink my teeth into the points that got to me the most.

"Now your baby will fight my monkey for legos. Poll: How much would you sell/purchase a healthy baby for? "

I wouldn't, I would offer them up as a food animal. I would forcibly regain any and all back pay given should the traitorous slut leave after maternity leave's descent into pure evil ended. Why some man would want anything to do with that loose flopping gash after she passed a baby through it I'll never know.

"Three recent things: 70% of the women in my company who have left on maternity leave have resigned immediately when it was over, and in fact never return to work. Those who remain are now squawking to our HR department for childcare subsidies or an on site day care. When they build that day care, I am going to get a monkey and demand they take care of it for me every day"

I will have them watch the watermelon I will buy from the Grocery Store. I will have them watch my favorite cucumber.

." If you can't afford to have a baby, then don't. If you are going to quit your job to raise a baby, then quit; don't squeeze the company for an extra six weeks of pay then quit. "

Amen Brother. I should count my blessings that I won't have to look at those milk swollen udder cows with huge flabby hips, and a double blessing that my girlfriend of eight years will never have a baby, and delightful tiny AA tits and a boyishly slim ass.

[ed] I too agree, the only right thinking thing to do is to increase the pay of fathers so that the mothers can stay home and raise the children in a proper, God fearing way. Of course, single folks may have to pitch in a little, financially, but it's for the best.

"And please, stop bringing your fucking babies to work to show everyone else."

Amen twice

" They stink and make too much noise. At a local bar where I like to meet my friends, there was a couple with their baby. They sat there, smoked, drank a bunch of beer, changed their baby at the table, and generally just let the goddamn mini-Winston Churchill look-alike cry the whole time."

This is about where I scream about the evils of bad parenting and where the blatant hypocrisy of the Breeder cult rings the truest. Our baby is our purest joy, yet we lovingly give it a slow nicotine ridden death at the local pub. You breeders scum make me sick. Get your brat back to the trailer park and raise it to be a backward slackjaw like daddy. The shebitch was probably waving her swollen udders around the feed the little cretin, too. Don't get me started in breastfeeding, it's gross!

"By the amount of beer bottles left on their table as a guide, they then proceeded to drive home drunk in their Jeep Grand Cherokee. In the new America, it should be legal for me to kill them. "

Solient (sic, ed) Green, buddy, all three of them, or at least a quality pig fodder. Maybe I can at least take the squalid, screaming baby and sacrifice it on a Wiccan altar.

[ed] True, those Wiccans love to sacrifice Christian babies, though they usually sacrifice young woman who have been hoodwinked by marijuana using Satanists.

"Some news magazine recently did an hour long episode on stress levels, and they compared a Fortune 500 CEO, someone trying to start their own small business, and a "full time mommy."

Here I raise an issue of my own: Mommying is NOT a job, it is not a career, nor is it a profession. What it is, is a choice in life that you make or don't make. It is a choice to live in the shadow of the demands and whims of a four-limbed raisin that will leach anything and everything out of you that it can until it is 18 and hopefully moves out. It is time to stop trying to project the delusion onto the rest of us, the normals, that having a brat is some kind of Sainthood or in some of the more backward circles of life, the only path in life.

[ed] Mr. ganglian is a little off here, for what could any right thinking woman hope for but to emulate the life of the Virgin Mary?

Breederism is but one of many choices you make in life, and I cannot emphasize enough how many true ignorami (The plural of ignoramus) out there should not have made that choice. Stop trying to push the rest of us into thinking life is ideal in the dark alley that is parenting. Some of us don't want it and are sick and tired of you breeder scum stinking up the workplace with your bastard kid's stinky diapers.

Think I like your kid, a pox on you!!!!!!

"Oddly enough the two people who worked for a fucking living had high levels of stress, and the mother did not. How was this spun by the reporters? The mother must have some great coping skills to deal with not one but two children. It's another fucking miracle. Of course, they ignored the fact that being a "full time stay at home mommy" is just not that fucking stressful."

And why should it be stressful if little raisin boy is the joy of your life? Departing for a moment from the workplace and moving into conventional social circles, I will slap you here to! Stay at home mommies I have been cursed to know have a little racket they try to pull at home to, Hypo missed this one. It is the inevitable path of trying to pass off your brat to anyone who will watch them for a few minutes "because Mommy (Breeder slut) needs a break". Suddenly all the breeder's friends become potential baby sitters. If you love the raisin menace so much, why do you spend so much time trying to get a break from the little mutant? HUH?!!! It's bad enough your new babysitter corps has to have the little turd factory included in any and all social dealing with the Breeders. My advice, boycott, let them die of their own sense of inconvience. You know that little yard ape was an accident anyway. Tell him/her/it that they were later in their lives, they will love you for it, really. Why the hell would you want anything to do with something that has so much to do with a vagina.

" In case you were wondering, your baby smells. It makes too much noise. It's very annoying. I do not want to hold it, look at it, or tell you how wonderful it is."

But will make it into a damn nice omelet for ya. Get the stinky little bastard away from me before I tear the head off it's little binky (Favorite stuffed whatever) and make it cry. Why? Because I can. Making an infant (Womb Parasite) cry is in no way illegal, not even a misdemeanor. (Mispelled to irritate breeders reading this. You know who you are)

"By the way, the fact that you managed to get knocked up and produce another mouth for me to feed, educate, care for, and eventually get shot by is not a miracle of Jesus; it's a tragic fucking mistake. You had a baby? Congratulations, you're a mammal! End Baby/Mommy/Daddy Worship in the 2k2. Peace. "

No Hypo! No peace, no tolerance for the nonbreeders, no peace! And now for the torrent of inevitable whining from the mommy responders, here we go! Whee...............!

Response number One:

"But no stress in raising children full time? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Sure, there's no much stress if you are just "watching" them. But raising them is very stressful. Discipline, safety, food, clothing, equipment, entertainment (which includes but is not limited to, books, toys, games, TV, etc). All of these things take time, money, thought and effort. To do the job well they take a LOT of some of these resources. That's stressful But that doesn't mean the job is easy. "

"...very few of which are intellectually challenging..."

I don't care if it's stressful, why must you force your breederism on everything in your path. We the normals don't care to deal with it. Like hypo said, me no want to hold, feed, change, acknowledge the urchin you and the mailman sired. I don't care! You need to lose the notion that parenting is a job. It is a choice, and for many backward thinking rednecks out there, it is a bad one. They should be making every stinking effort they can to avoid adding to the gene pool. Killing stupid people before they can breed should be allowed!

Response number two:

"I guess you've never had an inquisitive preschooler around asking "why" and pointing out inconsistencies."

No I haven't, and I don't care how hard you think that it is. The bottom line in having that parasite is that you made a choice to put up with all this alleged hardship. The rest of us don't care and you aint gettin any sense of sainthood for procreating and following the same stupid directive that every other species on Earth follows. You've proven you're doing your part in the food chain, whoopety fuckingdoo! Where the fuck is the comet to eradicate all life on earth, when will we live in a Matrix!

"Even when the questions are easy the answers can be hard--trying to put it in terms the child will understand, trying think of examples the child has encountered, thinking up variations on same when asked again. Then do this continually for literally hours on end."

You didn't hear me say we don't care, did you. Defend yourself to your own kind; they're the only ones buying it.

My peeves with the Workplace Mommies and with being a single person in the modern day having to know too many parental types summed up:

Your kids have no place in the workplace, not now, not ever, period. You have no right to collect for little Johnny's candy drive at work, I hate career day. You have no right to use your brat as a shield to pulling your weight in the workplace. If doing both is too much for you, choose one, quit the other. Yes it is that simple.

I don't want to hear about your brat's first word, or anything else, ad nausea, while at work, I work with you, I don't care about your home life, or actually anything about you. Do your job and leave me alone. Parenting is not a job, it is a life choice, and it doesn't elevate you to sainthood and put you first in realm of consideration above other people.

I don't care to you whine about how you have no time for yourself either, it's a life choice as in, you made a choice. Live with it and stop trying to burden the rest of us with you. The next time your kid gets cancer, too fucking bad, let him die alone in the hospital, I'm not taking your shift!

You are Mommies, you suck and need to stay the hell out of the workplace with your brats. Suck it up!

	Without moms... (none / 0) (#7)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:20:30 AM PST

	...we'd be extinct in one generation.

	Sir, ganglian's thesis is not against mothers (none / 0) (#9)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:26:39 AM PST

	it's against mothers who abandon their children to work outside the house. As the editor, I had to agree. I think any right thinking person would agree that much of the chaos and spiritual bankruptcy of America lately has been caused by mothers leaving their children to work outside their house, the subsequent devaluation of motherhood as a saintly occupation, and the lack of ethics in children raised by uncaring state sponsored daycares. A. Rightmann

	Sir Rightmann, (none / 0) (#30)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 10:02:35 PM PST

	You are correct - our nations Family Values are getting corrupted by those who refuse to have offspring. As you know - it is sinful not to have children. The Lord wishes all of us to have children. Todays hippie minded youth - would rather have many hours in the workplace then many of the lords children. The generation of our offspring will face two choices to deal with this pressing issue - either outlaw women in the workplace so they may care for their children at home, or allow all women to bring their children into the workplace to play along side their mother. -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright � 2002, Martino Cortez.

	I'm not in favor of outlawing women in the workpla (none / 0) (#34)
	by Adam Rightmann on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 10:16:18 AM PST

	ce, for they can perform needed functions, and even meet future husbands. But once they have kids, really the best thing for them, their kids and society is that they stay home, at least until the kids are in school, at which point they can work a few hours during the day, provided of course that the laundry, shopping and chores are done, the house is cleaned up, and dinner will be ready at 6. I certainly can't imagine them taking children to work, properly rearing children takes a lot of time and effort, and they're work quality would be very poor. A. Rightmann

	What kind of job do you do? (none / 0) (#36)
	by because it isnt on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 10:35:16 AM PST

	I only ask, because you mention 6PM as dinner-time. Most high-powered executive types that I know arrive home at 8PM or 9PM. It is only the regular office worker who has left at 5.30PM on the dot and has planned to live in a place that allows half-hour commutes, unlike the executive who has to negotiate twisty country roads and a final 10 minute drive down his driveway. Even the average retail employee can't leave until 8PM due to all-route late opening hours in today's society. The common labourer, while being extremely useful in building tomorrow's America, is even quicker off the marks when the work-bell sounds at 4.30. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I'm a normal computer professional (none / 0) (#44)
	by Adam Rightmann on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 05:06:32 PM PST

	working 8-5 every day, with a 20 minute commute, because I've chosen to live in the city and work in the suburbs. I've purposely chosen a meeker career path than management because I've seen what stress long, executive type hours can impose upon a family. I decided the best thing I can do for the world is to be a large force in my children's upbringing, so that they can become right thinking, God fearing, capable adults. This would be hard to do if I only saw them for a few minutes each night. A. Rightmann

	A common misapprehension. (none / 0) (#45)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 05:08:27 PM PST

	The people that you, the common labourer, think of as "high-powered executive types" are little more than puppets, installed by the true power-brokers to perpetuate an illusion of engagement and keep the yoke of fear firmly about the proletariat's neck. The real mogul rarely goes anywhere near the steel and glass prisons that he owns and profits so handsomely from. His office is a well-appointed wood-panelled affair in the villaige centre, staffed by a few capable, trustworthy, and comely assistants. The day begins at 10, with a careful perusal of the privately supplied world news feed, followed by some light correspondence. The real work of the day then begins: a long, fearfully expensive lunch with key associates, followed by several hours of negotiations on the links. A brief stop back in the office is made shortly before five, to instruct the staff in any new busines, after which a short chauffered ride ends at the front door of the main house on the estate, at about a quarter past. Half an hour is spent with the horses and hounds, after which our mogul freshens up, changes for dinner, and arrives in the dining room at six. The wife, after her day of tending to the children and overseeing the staff, is already seated at the table, and the domestics are on their way from the kitchen, the first course in hand. Meanwhile, the wayward nephew, oblivious to the punitive nature of his sinecure, sits in a rumpled suit atop the glass tower, shouting fearfully through a telephone at a cowering bean-counter. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Attn 'Slave: You are not Bob Abooey. (none / 0) (#46)
	by because it isnt on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 05:48:11 PM PST

	Nor are you any of his delinquent associates. Please stop apeing him. Now on to your main theory. It is poppycock. The high powered executive is no illusion. There are two paths to becoming obscenely rich. The first path is that of diligence, hard work, and entrepreneurial spirit. The second path is to become an accident of birth. In Britain, we have an aristocracy, and associated upper-class twits. These people assume titles and capitalise on their land reserves, family investments, etc. They call themselves Lords and Barons, but they have no real power outside their personal fiefdoms. As your precious United America rejected the King's hand, you find yourselves with a republican aristocracy. This is the Old Boy's Network, the Ivy league barbershop quartets, the Grand Old Party, CFOs of corrupt corporations, jumping from more wobbly boards than an Olympic diver. They are no different from our twits, except they don't go round Buck P on Tuesdays for tea with Liz. They siphon off pension fund surpluses and do extravagant lunches, but ultimately they control and do very little. That is done by real businessmen. Men who live and breathe business. These are the people I refer to in my original comment, and these are the people who are the real Kings of the business world. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Horatio Alger! (none / 0) (#64)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 08:19:32 AM PST

	I thought you were dead! Keep that bourgeois fantasy firmly in place, Mr Isn't. People are depending on it. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	And what are you on about, anyway? (none / 0) (#74)
	by RobotSlave on Mon Aug 19th, 2002 at 04:13:20 PM PST

	I didn't say a thing about aristocracy. In the country that controls the world, that is to say, in America, a self-respectinhg mogul wouldn't be caught dead with one of your foppish "titles," just as he wouldn't chain himself to a desk in a tower of steel and glass. As an aside, I must say the British propaganda you've been exposed to seems to be remarkably effective. Sheer genius of them to make power seem inconceivable outside of birthright or backbreaking labor. How do they do that, I wonder? © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	RobotSlave in gonorrhea shock. (none / 0) (#78)
	by because it isnt on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 02:25:25 PM PST

	Your lack of grounding in British tradition is showing. I wouldn't call it "propaganda". Propaganda, to my mind, is more like venture capitalists hyping doomed technology companies to swindle investors out of their money -- investors brought up to believe the nonsense of Capitalism, that the "free market" and its "free hand" shall provide liberty for all. Adam Smith would turn in his grave if he could hear the shambles of the dot-com bubble being described as 'capitalism'. Conrad Black, clearly, had no self-respect. Today's meta topic, children: RobotSlave. A typical RobotSlave discussion goes something like this: RobotSlave: blah blah something blatantly untrue and that's why I'm right! Protagonist: You are clearly incorrect. Here are SOME ACTUAL FACTS which show your grievous error. RobotSlave: Ah ha! I included some weasel-words in my previous statement, so instead of stating incorrect things, I am in fact stating nothing at all. Therefore, I win. Protagonist: yuo = teh dum I know no more than the average BBC viewer about my country's political scene. If you think I'm a political 'fanboy', you should have seen William Hague. When he was 16, he kept copies of Hansard under his bed. Of course, it is the view of stereotypical American that politics do not affect them, because it should be corporations running the country rather than elected officials. Incidentally, your comment was not deleted to make anyone look better or worse. Your comment was deleted because you are a known supporter of script-kiddism, and as such, automatically barred from commenting in that diary entry. You haven't actually written that in your diary. Go back and silently insert "and their known supporters" to stem another well of your own idiocy. Meanwhile, I'm going on holiday. Again. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Note on forms of address (1.00 / 1) (#42)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 04:36:01 PM PST

	In high-class circles, which you obviously have little to no experience with, Mr. Fernandez, Sir, the polite form of address is "title name, Sir." If one does not wish to use a proper name in the address, "Sir" will suffice. Yes, this does mean that a Knight of the Realm should be addressed in a seemingly redundant fashion, as in "Sir Olivier, Sir, I thought you were dead!" I have heard that this formulation sometimes sounds awkward to those without American military training. One very important exception to this rule occurs when addressing heads of state, as protocol will often explicitly require a specific form of address for the head of a specific nation-- e.g., one must refer to George Washburn Bush, the current President of the United States of America, as "Mister President," no matter how silly it sounds. Incidentally, my title is "Editor." Thus, in high-class situations, you may address me as "Editor RobotSlave, Sir." © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Or (none / 0) (#47)
	by First Incision on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 08:53:08 PM PST

	Editor RobotSlave, Sir, I have a request. That title is very long, and I cannot afford nude typists. May I abbreviate your title to "Ed?" _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	Thank you very much, Mister! (none / 0) (#60)
	by Juan Fernandez on Mon Aug 12th, 2002 at 04:23:22 PM PST

	Thanks, Mister RobotSlave, I always appreciate any piece of information which could be used to improve my social skills, specially in high-class circles, from now on I'll pay special attention to your posts and comments so my education could keep growing everyday, well-fed with these pearls of knowledge you spread all across this God Blessed site.

	Right as usual, 'Slavey! (none / 0) (#76)
	by because it isnt on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 02:49:40 PM PST

	Backstory: I posited that the ennobled lack true power. 'Slave disagreed (see immediately above parent comment). In another thread, 'Slave insisted that knighthoods confer no real power, a reversal his previous opinion. I pointed this out, and 'Slave deleted the thread to make himself look better. I didn't say a thing about aristocracy. Nobody is saying that you did. You live in a republic. You wouldn't know an aristocracy if it invited you to a garden party. I was offering the readers a comparison. I even came up with a snappy oxymoron to describe your lot. Sadly, America only acts like it rules the world. If it actually ruled the world, its airline and financial industries wouldn't be in such a mess. a self-respectinhg mogul wouldn't be caught dead with one of your foppish "titles," When Conrad Black, American newspaper mogul was offered an ennoblement from our Brenda, did he choose Republicanism, or the Lording? That was a rhetorical question. You clearly haven't seen much British politics if you think you can obtain power without effort. Perhaps you mistake physical effort and political effort. Apart from oddballs like Pitt, Tony Blair is the "youngest" Prime Minster ever, becoming PM at "only" 44 years of age, after roughly 26 years in politics. To achieve power in Britain is a long, arduous, backbiting task. Young Johnny-come-latelys like William Hague and Iain Duncan Cough just get shat upon by their superiors. This is unlike American politics, where your position in government depends on how many unethical corporations are bribing you not to legislate them out of business. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Poor fool. (none / 0) (#77)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Aug 20th, 2002 at 06:18:17 PM PST

	See? See how they've got you completely obsessed with royalty? That's brilliant propaganda work. You're so brainwashed that you can't read an account of a powerful man's day without assuming he's "ennobled." Where did I say knighthood confers real power, Mr. Isnt? Go ahead and quote the passage, if you like. Conrad Black, clearly, had no self-respect. This condition, unsurprisingly, is quite common in the typical officebound figurehead CEO. I like your obsessive fanboy description of British politics. The figureheads in Parliament do have a modicum of power, true, but it should be clear that with all the political maneuvering, they, like all public servants, have no time for the careful orchestration of world events. Official governments have their functions, yes, but their members should be viewed as just that: functionaries. Incidentally, your comment was not deleted to make anyone look better or worse. Your comment was deleted because you are a known supporter of script-kiddism, and as such, automatically barred from commenting in that diary entry. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	You poor dear. (none / 0) (#79)
	by RobotSlave on Wed Aug 21st, 2002 at 06:07:54 PM PST

	A critical element of all propaganda, of course, is that those who are subjected to it should not understand it as such. This is of course true of the American propaganda that you keep bleating on about, but it is equally true of the British propaganda that has you so firmly in its grip. Now then. It seems you've suffered some sort of apoplectic fit upon realizing your most significant error. I didn't say anything about the supposed power of the nobility, did I? And that is upsetting, isn't it? It must be very irritating, indeed, for you to get so hopelessly enraged over the "weasle words" that you ignored in your haste to present your irrelevant "ACTUAL FACTS." Live by pedantry, die by pedantry, Mr Isnt. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	RobotSlave sucks dogs cocks in Hell. (none / 0) (#80)
	by because it isnt on Thu Aug 22nd, 2002 at 12:23:51 AM PST

	A critical element of all propaganda, of course, is that those who are subjected to it should not understand it as such. This is of course true of the American propaganda that you keep bleating on about, but it is equally true of the British propaganda that has you so firmly in its grip. It's only propaganda if corporations are spreading it. If the government is spreading it, it's called "culture". HTH. I didn't say anything about the supposed power of the nobility, did I? And that is upsetting, isn't it? To your first question: this is a repeat. While it is a question that is central to your confusion, I have already answered it. To your second question: No. You are still firmly shot down. To pretend you weren't really saying what was refuted is simply being a bad loser. I win. Live by pedantry, die by pedantry, Mr Isnt. "Mr Isn't", you fool. Tch. You can't get the staff these days. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	How's the holiday going? (none / 0) (#81)
	by RobotSlave on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 12:52:09 AM PST

	If I lose, does this mean I can make up contradictions in your comments for myself when there aren't any, and then claim I win because I imagined them? Good day, Mr. "isnt." © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	No, (none / 0) (#83)
	by because it isnt on Fri Aug 30th, 2002 at 03:25:05 PM PST

	it means you can go back and use your janitorial super-powers to strike out contradictions from your old comments. Not so much "1984" as "big idiot is watching you". Holiday's finished, by the way. It was only a quick one. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	ey, that's an easy one! (none / 0) (#38)
	by Juan Fernandez on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 11:08:48 AM PST

	"...The generation of our offspring will face two choices to deal with this pressing issue - either outlaw women in the workplace so they may care for their children at home, or allow all women to bring their children into the workplace to play along side their mother..." Well Doctor (excuse me, I've been calling you "Mister" for some time now) it is obvious that if women stay at home with children we can not beat them during working hours, so the second choice is a must. Relieving husbands' stress is one of the dutys Good Wise Lord gave to spouses. Children can take advantage and learn this important lesson in an early stage of their educational process.

	A difficult question. (none / 0) (#63)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 07:53:19 AM PST

	While such abbreviations are acceptable in certain forms of brief communication, a better impression is always made with the full title. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Yeah, so? (none / 0) (#10)
	by gzt on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 09:30:08 AM PST

	Exactly. What's wrong with that?

	Our Death... Our Life... (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 08:41:15 AM PST

	If you worship death but not life, how can you have true purpose? If you worship life but not death, how can you have true purpose? If you worship both, you can have true purpose.

	What the hell? (none / 0) (#26)
	by gzt on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 02:48:39 PM PST

	True purpose? Worship? Look, mate: I never said anything about death, life, or "true" purpose. Take your pseudo-mysticist blither and snort it. The question I am attempting to ask in this thread is, "Should we care if this is the last generation?"

	Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 09:57:48 PM PST

	Yes we should care. It is a great sin not to procreate. -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright � 2002, Martino Cortez.

	If you don't like your workplace... (none / 0) (#8)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 08:23:43 AM PST

	...QUIT!!!

	Don't Quit. (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 10:27:28 AM PST

	Don't run away from the problem. Work vigorously to change it to be the way you think it should be. Get rid of those kids. They don't belong at work. If you don't have the decency to quit, or leave them with their grandmother, you're not wanted here anyway.

	Was that a joke? (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 01:03:03 PM PST

	Cause I was laughing my ass all the way through it! Sheesh why can't most people just stop having kids I hate them the god damn world has to many humans any ways. Chris rock says it best... STOP FUCKING! Put the dick down, get a job, get a job holding dicks whatever you do just stop fucking! I am tired of all these fucking hicks having like 7 children we don't need 7 more klans men and women. Or poor people period having children. A think people should only be allow two children max and atlest 5 years between the two!

	Sounds like a Communist plan to me (none / 0) (#15)
	by dmg on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 06:19:29 PM PST

	Your plan to restrict the number of offspring free Americans choose to have is remeniscent of the one-child law currently in effect in China. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Err well (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 9th, 2002 at 10:09:00 AM PST

	Do want to living on top of over people, no trees, no forest, no air, no space, cause people can't stop having children. Its fucked up peer pressure the convinces people to have a child, maybe greedy grand parents and poor people should stop presuring people to have children, I rather live in a world where its sorta like china, to have enough food, space, and air to live. Again either kill alot of people or slow down the birth rate.

	*You are* a communist** (none / 0) (#28)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 10th, 2002 at 09:55:55 PM PST

	The Lord gave us these trees, these animals, and these women FOR OUR USE! It would be shame not to use up the forests - a gift given by Our Lord. It would be a shame not to harvet cattle, or buffalo, or whales. The Lord has given these to us for us to consume. It would be sinful not to use them. If they lord did not want us to procreate - he would not have created the penis and the vagina. Clearly we are reproductive beings, and we do The Lords work by having as many children to share our Lords bountiful forests, animals and water. -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright � 2002, Martino Cortez.

	Your a joke! (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 11th, 2002 at 09:07:04 PM PST

	I've study you, you have been measure, and you are found to be a hoax. Its funny your making fun of coprate people and these idiots think your a real CEO. Are you a comic or just a realy funny artist?

	Sir, (none / 0) (#67)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Tue Aug 13th, 2002 at 04:23:54 PM PST

	I am as real of a CEO as John W Sidgmore is the (perhaps soon to be former) CEO of Worldcom. Perhaps you should take the time you have spent questioning my integrity, and learn some simple spelling and grammar. I suggest you go elseware where they do not care about spelling, grammar, or intelligence. Good day to you Anonymous Reader -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright � 2002, Martino Cortez.