My inlaws are not fertile!

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

My inlaws are not fertile!

Author:

Adam Rightmann

Topic:

Sex

Posted:

Dec 27, 2001

Comments:

Hello gentle readers, and a Merry Christmas to you all. I apologize for my absence; I have not forgotten you, but T. Reginald Gibbon's article on hackers apparently touched a few nerves, and in the ensuing DOS attacks, my meager 33.6 modem was unable to reliably access this site. So, belatedly I answer a readers question on an inlaw's fertility, and help a couple realize a fantasy.

More stories by

Adam Rightmann

	My husband wants to do my ass!
	Rock Star: Headbanging Nights
	Saluting American Heroes on Flight 93
	We are all children of Adam and Eve
	I'm a teenager, and I want it bad!
	I have not had relations for months!
	My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag
	Have a Right Halloween!
	Should we circumcize our boy?
	My wife hungers for dark meat, and my nephew is a Commie!
	My husband wants me shorn!
	Help save a baby, and snowballs
	What shall we give up for Lent?
	Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
	Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
	Why can't I get a second date?
	I want a mistress!
	My roommate is gay! My roommate is a drunk.

Dear Adam,

It is the holiday season, and I get to see all my wonderful inlaws. I do worry about my wife's youngest sister, though. She has been married to her husband for five years, and has but two children. Would it be prying to ask if they have fertility problem? Do you suppose they might even be using birth control? They have such a beautiful house, it should be full of children. We will be visiting them this season, what do you think?

Wants lots of nieces and nephews

Dear Wants.

I don't recommend prying too much, perhaps they are having fertility problems, or have had miscarriages, it can be a painful subject. You can ask when they are going to get a baby sister/brother for little Esau, while dandling him on your knee. That being said, while it would be a sin to poke holes in any Trojans you find in their bedroom, it may be a greater sin to use them, capiche?

Dear Adam,

I read with interest your advice to bathe in walnut shells in order to provide a fantasy to my wife of being ravished by a muscle bound blackmen. This may give my skin a dusky hue, but how to I acquire a huge, thick ebony rod of manhood? Could I buy the Big Brutha penis sheathe?

Fearful of being Inadequate

Dear fearful,

There is a myth that men of African descent have much larger penii than men of European descent. Whether this is due to watching perverted pornographic films, subtle racism, or extrapolating athletic prowess to genital size, I do not know. Masters and Johnson did do a statistical measurement indicating a slight size difference, on the order of half an inch, but the sample size was almost too small to be valid.

That being said, using a Big Brutha sheathe is almost certainly prohibited, unless you take the time to drill holes in it to prevent it from being used a birth control device. Even then, I would find it morally suspect.

The even greater moral question is whether you should be engaging in such miscegenation fantasies. It sounds perilously close to infidelity in the heart to me, while it may stymie your wife's odd urges in the short term, in the long term it may prove hazardous to your health. Couldn't you just read the Song of Solomon together?

	Bravo! (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 04:52:39 PM PST

	As always Adam's advice correlates directly with our Heavenly Fathers words and his advice serves as a blessing to those, like me, with similar troubling issues like the above mentioned. Thanks so much Adam! and Merry CHRISTmas! P.S. If it's not to much to ask...If you know the administrators of Adequacy (I know your a frequent poster) would you please ask them to monitor the posts more closely so rubbish like this does not have a chance to seep in and disgrace the honour our great nation and great leader has worked so hard to maintain during these troubled times. Jesus Bless America! Brendon Maragia

	Some alternate advice (3.00 / 2) (#3)
	by SpaceGhoti on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 05:31:04 PM PST

	Dear Wants: When you consider that the Earth is considered to be capable of supporting eleven billion humans and that the current population is over nine billion, the issue of birth control begins to take on a whole new outlook. While procreation is a blessing, moderation is in order before we produce more children than we can feed. Population growth needs to taper off rather than increase the way it has. Your relatives may have decided that they're produced enough children and that it would be irresponsible (or possibly beyond their means) to create more. Respect their decision and their maturity, and leave them alone. It takes a mature adult to know when to stop. Dear Fearful: It sounds to me like your wife is hinting that you just aren't enough. It could be your technique, your imagination or possibly just the equipment God provided you. Whatever the reason, you should not be afraid to branch out into alternate forms of satisfaction for your wife. If she wishes to sample "dark meat," there are plenty of organizations out there for you to find and meet people who fit the bill. However, you should be picky about whom you choose to play with. Mere physical attraction is not always sufficient; you should be ready to ask for a medical background and insist on barrier method birth control. You should also be comfortable around the man (or men) your wife will be shagging, and understand that while your wife may lust for them she loves you and will still be there with you when the lights go out. If you can't bring yourself to be selfless and thoughtful of your wife's needs in that way, there are tools and medical procedures designed to simulate the greater girth and length your wife obviously craves. Shop around and find a solution you're both comfortable with; there may be several you can choose and alternate between for variety. Involve your wife in every step of the process. She knows what she wants from you, and she knows what will satisfy her best. It will help you grow as a couple and give you new insights into what will make you a better lover for her. Good luck, and happy recreational non-procreation! A troll's true colors.

	You must not be from USia (4.50 / 2) (#4)
	by sdem on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 06:49:53 PM PST

	...Because if you were, I would think it would be time to seriously re-examine your world view. Honestly, we live in the greatest nation on Earth, and you're worried about a couple more kids? Hello? We're going to have to procreate at a higher rate to keep up with booming countries like India and China, who together sport more than a third of the world's population. Frankly, I think it is the Indians and slanteyes who should stop procreating. They already have more than they can feed, besides which it wouldn't matter if they are sinning by doing so or not, because, as heathens, they are going to hell anyway. Personally, I think we should take on a forced birth control program in that part of the world in order to keep them from eating themselves to death, but unfortunately, there are too many short-sighted people in this nation today who would resist such an expense.

	Not anymore, I'm not (1.00 / 1) (#7)
	by SpaceGhoti on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 11:16:17 PM PST

	So, it's okay for Americans to undergo an explosive population expansion, but nobody else? The US doesn't presently have a population problem. Technically, neither does the rest of the world. We haven't reached that point yet. That doesn't mean we won't reach it within the next decade, if the human attitude toward procreation isn't curbed. There's a lot more to responsible parenting than just checking to see if the planet has lit up the "Tilt" sign yet. Solutions to global problems have to start somewhere. Encouraging Americans to increase the number of children they have to keep up with another nation isn't one of them. A troll's true colors.

	Wake up. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by tkatchev on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 11:38:47 PM PST

	The world has been undergoing a "catastrophic popultion explosion" for the last 200 years. Even back at around the turn of the 19th/20th century, liberalist pundits were predicting immediate overpopulation of the Earth. (Read up on the history of "social drawinism".) None of these half-baked self-justification schemes panned out, of course. The Earth's biosphere is a self-regulating system. -- Peace and much love...

	self-regulating systems (none / 0) (#9)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 12:03:52 AM PST

	You're right, the planet is a self-regulating system. We see the cycle repeated endlessly in nature: when a species experiences an explosive population growth, it fills its ecological niche to the exclusion of all others before dying back to a more manageable level. This suggests two consequences for uncontrolled human population expansion: first, that all other species will be driven to extinction, and then the human species will suffer a "dieback" period in which billions of lives will be lost. Unless, as you say, the current predictions over population limits is nothing more than blind hysteria. Let's hope we find a way to feed more than the 11 billion currently predicted as the maximum sustainable level with current technology. It's a shame we can't do better with the food we produce now. A troll's true colors.

	"Current predictions"? (none / 0) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 12:22:56 AM PST

	They are anything but current. In fact, they have kept steady the same hysterical tone for the last 200 years. The figures you cite are pulled out of your ass -- in 1910, liberalist activists like yourself predicted that "with the current technology, we cannot possibly feed the predicted 1 billion human population. The human race will suffer a gigantic humanitarian crisis by 1915 if we do not do something quick!". Of course, all this is nothing but empty rationalizing to cover your anti-human ideology. The idea is that if you can convince the public that there is some sort of imaginary "population crisis", you can much more easily convince them that it is OK to kill babies. That is what all your hot air amounts to. Self-justification for infanticide. -- Peace and much love...

	Would you people please start citing your sources? (none / 0) (#11)
	by RobotSlave on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 02:28:15 AM PST

	For the love of Not-God, how fucking hard is it to quote fucking Malthus, be ye for or against? Could you kids at least point to philosophers who have spent some time on the issues, instead of bleating out whatever "thought" that you, personally, might have had in the past ten minutes? Good Not-Christ, I do wish the kids these days would at least occasionally fall back on their educations in lieu of simply assuming unquestionable intellectual authority over whatever contoversial matter is at hand. Such baseless debate is, to me, incredibly boring, and I must confess, if I were charged with the dire responsibility of Editorial Powers, I would be sorely tempted to delete some of these ravings. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Why? (none / 0) (#13)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 04:14:35 AM PST

	If you love Malthus so much, why don't you leave us alone and go read him by yourself in the corner. Personally, I'm not interested in re-reading poorly done summaries of philosophical works on websites. Better to indulge in quick ten-second discussion of "thoughts" than to indulge our ego with baseless self-gratification. -- Peace and much love...

	Rationalization (none / 0) (#14)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 04:38:17 AM PST

	Yes, it's true. I use the arguments of respected scientists and experts to justify my sinful, godless desire to commit the infanticide of children not yet conceived by preventing their conception. May God have mercy on my soul. A troll's true colors.

	No joke. (none / 0) (#23)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 12:17:28 PM PST

	Exactly. I am serious, 100%, all hints of irony and sarcasm aside. Could not have said it better myself. -- Peace and much love...

	poppycock (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 12:41:15 PM PST

	liberalist pundits were predicting immediate overpopulation of the Earth. (Read up on the history of "social drawinism".) I think you will find that the conservatives were stealing the limelight, as far as overpopulation hysteria. Thanks to their leader Malthus's inability to perform simple mathematical calculations, they were led up a blind path. The Earth's biosphere is a self-regulating system. There is abundant evidence for this - El Nino, recent terrorist activity, etc - it is quite clear that whatever tragedy unfolds, the USians will take the brunt of it. I believe this is called 'poetic justice'.

	So? (none / 0) (#25)
	by tkatchev on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 01:42:23 PM PST

	When have I ever defended the so-called "conservatives"? "Liberal" is a small subset of "liberalist"; in fact, in the U.S. a "conservative" is simply an outmoded liberalist. -- Peace and much love...

	Would you mind proving that? (none / 0) (#40)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 10:36:32 PM PST

	Judging from your current location, I would imagine that it's difficult for you to have actual working experience with these American liberals (of which I am one) and conservatives (of which you resemble). Through labeling and using the term "liberalist" as an insult, which you do often, it can be deduced that you have little favor for those of the liberal mindset. So if you don't defend the "so-called 'conservatives'", where does that place you then? Are you moderate? Neutral? Typically, from the American view at least (as I am more acquainted with it than are you), a strong fundamentalist xian, pro-life, anti-birth control, socially conservative person such as yourself could easily be classified as a "so-called 'conservative'". And you do defend this point of view quite regularly, with an almost paranoid voracity. You should stop contradicting yourself, unless you enjoy being thought of as a below average intellectual force on this site. Just a suggestion. Anyway, you've once again seen something written with you in mind, taken it completely out of context and posted a bewildering reply that has very little to do with what the person was originally attempting to discuss with you. Not once did the AR state that you were "defending conservatives". If you cannot put together a well thought out response to a person that at least attempts to stay on topic, perhaps you should find another discussion that is more at your pace? Just another suggestion. I have plenty more, if you like. :) Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Flatland philosophy. (none / 0) (#42)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 03:19:32 AM PST

	So, in your opinion, any political opinion must range between the two extremes of "U.S. liberal" and "U.S. conservative"? That is awfully closed-minded of you. I believe that any political philosophy that isn't ultimately based on God is a liberalist, anti-human destructive cult. That doesn't mean that I advocate theocracy, (Render unto Ceasar, etc.) it simply means that any philosophy that tries to replace God (with money, freedom, Lenin, etc.) will in the end degenerate into a zombie-worshiping demon cult. I'm not blowing hot air here; learn some world history to see for yourself how painfully true that statement is. -- Peace and much love...

	they just don't understand (none / 0) (#46)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:04:38 AM PST

	Whenever you say "liberal" they automatically become like bulls in a bullfight. Its really very very sad. You see, America (especially the NE) was founded by uptight puritan religious freaks who burned each other for having sex and being witches. Thankfully, not all Americans were like this and there wre more cosmopolitan settlers and lands (Texas and California) which were responsible for defining the true character of America. Assuming that because they were so religious, they must be "socially liberal and do-gooders" (A common religious fallacy), the North Eastern weasels continue to spread their vile puritanical hypocrisy to this very day. They can't even understand that when you say liberal what you mean is vile religious anti-human destructive cult. No matter how much you spell it out for them they will continue to think that they are the most holy and that anyone who disagrees with them will be struct down by some mythical weasel god. --philipm

	The Corner Stone for any Good Society (5.00 / 1) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:22:13 PM PST

	...it simply means that any philosophy that tries to replace God (with money, freedom, Lenin, etc.) will in the end degenerate into a zombie-worshiping demon cult. As long as we're pointing out inclinations... Isn't it the case with any philosophy, that some followers will degenerate it into a zombie-worshiping demon cult? From my experiences, it seems that really anything can degenerate to a mindless cult, recycling the same rhetoric spew. Especially philosphies based on Gods... I'm not blowing hot air here; learn some world history to see for yourself how painfully true that statement is. I think you are, insofar as we can exchange and debate historical lessons learned to support whatever arguments we're trying to push. As long as we're trying to push "self-evident truths" regarding the pragmatic advantage of philosophies, lets compare the effectiveness of Critical Thinking (Science) with philosophies based on a God. In otherwords, which has done more the improve the quality of life on this planet? Which one would you rely on to save your life? Which one dares to challenge itself? Some of you may point out that Science is not a religion, it is just a method. Well, Consider the purpose and impact of this method. Purpose - To sift truth from BS There are many of you who believe that you can comfortably believe in God and Science simutaniously.... You can!!! People are capable of a huge range of functions, including believing in a many philosophies simutaniously without resolving the conflicts between them!!! However, If you want to get serious for a moment: Science suggests there is no reason for believing in God. If there was, Science would have given us a lot of proof, just like if phychics were real, a psychic would have proven it to us. (If you were psychic, wouldn't you take the James Randi test, win the $1 million, and prove to that fag, once and for all that you should never doubt master psychics like Silvia Brown?) That's not saying the idea of God existing is impossible, it just suggests that if he does exist, not sharing his perfect goodness with us is cruel, which would not make him perfectly good. ...but you can explain that, can't you? Oh yeah, What were we talking about? You were saying that history teaches us that God is the cornerstone of every great civilization. How does Science rank up?

	A thought (none / 0) (#56)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 06:03:42 PM PST

	That's not saying the idea of God existing is impossible, it just suggests that if he does exist, not sharing his perfect goodness with us is cruel, which would not make him perfectly good. I, for one, don't presume to second-guess God or God's intentions, or to make judgements about someone whom I can't even begin to understand in any real meaning of the word. And who are you to say whether God is sharing perfect goodness or not? Maybe it's all around you, and you just don't see it.

	Another thought... (none / 0) (#57)
	by Lint on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:26:53 PM PST

	Perhaps that's just the way god wants it... Because if one were to second-guess the xian god's intentions, one might see the inconsistencies of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god allowing so many of his creations to be killed by famine or war, disease or murder... or for some of those who die to spend an eternity suffering in "hell" merely for not believing in the "right" god, while those who murder and rape can spend eternity in "heaven" if they accept Christ into their lives and repent for their sins. The obvious questions, then, are: wouldn't it have been simpler for the xian god to have just selected those he wished to be in "heaven" and those that would end up in "hell" and cut out the middle man of life on Earth and put everyone in their respective places, as, according to xian doctrine, that's where all humans will end up when it's all said an done? Why does an all-powerful god need to be worshipped, then, if said god decided to have humans live out life on Earth before they move on to some form of afterlife? And if god is all-powerful, why would the existence of evil or "satan" be challenging enough to affect god's Earthly creations, including humankind? But these are just questions, of course. "Why does the Bible dissuade readers from questioning the will or existence of god?" is another. "Eternity in `hell' as a punishment for such questioning of this god" is the Bible's answer... or threat, depending on how it's viewed. Personally, any of "god's perfect goodness" would be much more enjoyable without some of the perfectly horrible things that exist in this world. In this light the xian god could be considered to be very cruel indeed, making his human subjects suffer through the travails of life without any divine assistance other than the notion of an afterlife in paradise for those who maintain their faith. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Hmm... (none / 0) (#58)
	by hauntedattics on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:08:01 AM PST

	You write in your post as if you believe that God is somehow responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world. Just because God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent doesn't mean that God intervenes when humans make bad or evil choices that engender evil results. Human beings have free will, and are thus able to choose what they do in the world and what they believe in. This can mean doing good, or it can mean perpetrating evil. And it isn't just 'xians' who believe in this, by the way - I'm not and never have been an 'xian', though I'm beginning to think there's quite a bit of sense there. I'm also starting to agree with Nathan that your abbreviation is a bit annoying. Should I start calling you an a-ist? No, I'm just kidding, but it is a question of respect. I don't claim to know much about religion at all, but I do know that my concept of God is quite different from the one you describe. One of these days I might even be able to articulate what that concept is. As for your concepts of heaven and hell, for a different perspective, read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. It's well worth it, even for an atheist. My husband, in particular, really found it interesting even though his beliefs are closer to yours than to mine.

	Well... (none / 0) (#59)
	by Lint on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 03:10:12 PM PST

	If god is the supreme deity who controls and created the universe, wouldn't that include all of the "bad things" in it? And if god is omniscient, which the Bible claims that he is, wouldn't he be aware of all of the acts of humankind long before they occur? I assume this also includes that god is aware of human destiny, including the destination of humans after they die... meaning that "free will" has already been preordained by god despite humankind's attempts to strike out our own path. Which is quite depressing if you think about it. I've stopped saying "xian" as my purpose is not to offend, and the term xian is obviously offensive to some. My apologies if I have. I may be an atheist, but I'm not an insensitive bitch... not always, anyway. ;) But I agree-- respect is important, and I would be a hypocrite if I offended others while wishing that others would respect my own ideals. My concept of heaven and hell is obviously engrained in the Christian perception of such, as I was raised Baptist by a Baptist minister (who, ironically, is the greatest supporter of my atheist decision). For many years I too had my own concept of god, as the concepts that were shown to me were quite unbelievable. We are all comfortable with what we know subjectively, and if you have a concept that works for you-- kudos. And I don't mean that sarcastically. I have all kinds of respect for those who honestly know what they believe, and are comfortable with that belief, whether or not they are able to articulate the belief and whether or not it is a belief with which I agree. Thanks for the suggestion-- I'm actually a great fan of Lewis (and of L'Engle, a mentor of his) and will seek it out when I am able. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Interesting (none / 0) (#60)
	by hauntedattics on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 12:05:47 PM PST

	Well, you've pinpointed my stumbling block. I'm still trying to articulate, at least to myself if no one else, why God is all-good and all-powerful and yet bad things happen. As far as I know, it's been a thorny theological question for years. My only current thought on this is that even if God knows everything and can do everything, it doesn't mean God acts to intervene all the time. As for free will and predestination, I like the analogy my friend gave me yesterday. You're in love with someone and you want them to love you, but would you rather make them love you or that they fell in love with you of their own accord? That's about as far as I've gotten with that thus far. You'll enjoy Lewis if you've read L'Engle, but I think you meant that Lewis was L'Engle's mentor...? (since he's been dead since 1963 and she's still around or recently deceased)

	Yeah.... that's it. (none / 0) (#61)
	by Lint on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:17:51 AM PST

	Thanks for the correction. :) Same school of thought, obvious in many of their books-- the ability to get across a rather pointed (and poignant) spiritual message, while avoiding the overt "preachiness" that can ruin the mood of things. "A Wrinkle in Time" is still one of my favorite children's books, much for that reason. And of course, Lewis' 'Chronicles of Narnia' series is fascinating in its parallel between religion and Arthurian mythology. "Thorny theological questions", including that of "free will", are fun. It seems that you're quite an intelligent person-- continue looking for your own answers, as it seems you already are. While I see nothing but glaring contradiction when I delve into these problems, you might see something completely different and equally interesting. That's what I find most fascinating about our species-- Two people, biologically equivalent. Two minds, wildly varying. But as far as your stumbling block, if I might relate with a personal experience-- it is difficult to perceive a god who is capable of metaphorically "turning his/her back" on human suffering if one has been ingrained with the image of or is innately hopeful for an "all-loving" god. It's almost like the moment children realize their parents are fallible-- suddenly the almost "god-like" image we have of our parents is held up against the not-so-perfect, but inherently human, image of a mother or father who has failed in some way. That can be difficult to process, especially in young children. So then the image of an all-loving god, and one who allows his human "children" to make mistakes and ultimately suffer, is an interesting one... especially considering how many other human qualities mankind has instilled upon our god figures throughout history. And how humans respond to this theoretical "parenting" is also interesting, as is seen in those "thorny" questions and the resulting debates. ;) Again, just my personal input, and I appreciate yours. And thanks for being one of the very few non-judgmental and decent people I've met on this site to date. It makes intelligent discussion so much easier-- on both sides I would imagine. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	How nice (none / 0) (#62)
	by hauntedattics on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:07:58 AM PST

	Just as I don't presume to second-guess God, I try not to be overly critical or judgemental of people, even when they have different views from mine. Everyone has been formed by his or her own experiences and it's important at least to recognize that, even when you violently disagree. That said, however, some of the diary entries and AR comments on this site make awfully tempting targets...and I admit, I'm only human. Sometimes I do get cruel with the guys looking for relationship advice. Call me the anti-Dear Abby.

	no, no, you're just ignorant (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 07:12:43 AM PST

	although you're trying hard to thread trivial differences between American political parties into some kind of profound political philosophy. In a sentence, Liberalism is and has always been common to both the Democrats and the Republicans. Your Constitution is a liberalist document. Your country is founded on the principles of liberalist philosophy. Americans are essentially children of Locke and Adam Smith. The liberalist tradition is in every idea each and every one of you repeats with utter conviction and faith. You venerate the liberalist philosophers as Founding Fathers, and you treat their words as gospel. You cannot understand anything else.

	conservatives?! (none / 0) (#51)
	by nathan on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 04:18:45 AM PST

	Tkatchev's claiming not to defend American "conservatism" was quite a propos for the following reason: the AR in question had pointed out that his "conservatives" were suffering a fate tkatchev had indicated for "liberalists." Tkatchev's response is that he doesn't consider the differences between American "conservatives" and "liberals" to be essential or even substantial. Now, some of Tkatchev's positions, and mine for that matter, are aligned with those of the American Republican Party. You've made it clear that this is what "conservative" means to you. That's certainly not what it means to me. Speaking for myself, the American right has a deplorable record on racial issues; a disgusting willingness to go hand in hand with state capitalism; no compunction about bending facts and rewriting history to suit its short-term political goals; and, in general, a living tradition of shamefully manipulating its adherents' prejudices for the most cynical reasons. Do you actually think that I am a mindless, Buchanan-voting drone? This is where I have a right to get mad, frankly. And stop spelling it 'xian;' that's a damn city in China. Any posts using that nomenclature will be answered with equally offensive terms. While you're at it, you might answer my post on monistic materialism instead of pretending it isn't there. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Nathan, chill. (none / 0) (#52)
	by Lint on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 10:36:19 AM PST

	Tkatchev's continuing debate based on the conservative view on population expansion did not give rise to his having to defend so-called conservativism against liberalism. His reply to the AR seemed merely to be an emotional response to an issue he would rather not have handled, when instead he could throw the liberal vs. conservative argument into the air as a diversion tactic. The AR made quite a good point, yet tkatchev chose to evade the point... as he is given. You've made it clear that this is what "conservative" means to you. You have an issue with giving credence to your claims, but I will forgive you as it appears this is only a personal opinion of what you believe I do or do not think. Conservativism transcends politics, and has less to do with Republican or Democrat than it does to do with personal views and opinions on any number of topics. I am pleased to hear that, politically at least, you and I have much in common. I also deplore much of what the American Republican Party supports and has carried out through history. Likewise, I also deplore much of what the American Democratic Party has supported and carried out through history. Hopefully you do not prejudge ones political opinions based on their personal, liberal views. Which is why we're here-- discussing these topics may, hopefully, lead to better understanding on both parts and, eventually, common ground on which to stand. Considering tkatchev's continuing responses, he has asserted that he is fundamentally xian, pro-life, anti-birth control, and socially conservative. Based on these responses, I deduced that he is conservative, and that his responses are of a conservative nature. And, as I originally stated, it made no sense for him to claim that he wasn't defending the "so-called" conservative viewpoint because he was, and is, whether it be "American" conservativism or not. My issue is not with the conservative viewpoint-- but with the contradiction. My issue was also with the statement: in fact, in the U.S. a "conservative" is simply an outmoded liberalist. which I do not agree is a fact, as is my right. This is where I have a right to get mad, frankly. And stop spelling it 'xian;' that's a damn city in China. Any posts using that nomenclature will be answered with equally offensive terms. You have a right to be offended or get mad at any single thing I post here, you are absolutely correct. I also have the right to be offended at your use of curse words. I have the right to type "xian" in any manner I choose, really, just as xians have the right to type "Christian". I won't tell you what to say and how to say it, if you'll afford me the same rights, deal? Honestly, are you so conservative that you would try to control the way I express myself? At least, in this country, the good ol' US of A, I have the right to express myself freely. Where do you live? And I would have responded to your post on monistic materialism had: The post fit the topic considering the conversation to which you responded, and You not referred to me as "Old boy", as I am neither old nor a boy. I honestly thought you had accidentally posted in the wrong thread and to another person. But now that I know that was meant for me, I shall pop off to give it a glance. Thanks for your time. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	forced birth control (none / 0) (#19)
	by PotatoError on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 09:04:20 AM PST

	"I think we should take on a forced birth control program in that part of the world in order to keep them from eating themselves to death, but unfortunately, there are too many short-sighted people in this nation today who would resist such an expense." Are you going to tell us how you would go about setting up forced birth control in a foreign country? havent china already got an efficient forced birth control program underway? Anyway its western countries which are using up far more resources than anyone else even though we have far less people and a lower population growth. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	It's already underway (none / 0) (#22)
	by zikzak on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 11:58:38 AM PST

	`Are you going to tell us how you would go about setting up forced birth control in a foreign country?` Actual birth control will be far too difficult to effectively promote in a country like India. Thankfully we have an alternative plan that is already well underway. Our behind-closed-doors negotiations with Pakistan have been proceeding nicely, and it should only be a matter of weeks before you will see a couple well-placed thermonuclear devices detonated over the cities of Calcutta and Mumbai. In only a few short seconds the USian population deficit with India will be vaporized in a lovely cloud of flame, concussion and radioactivity.

	What a coincidence! (none / 0) (#26)
	by PotatoError on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 08:10:09 PM PST

	Wow! thats uncanny. You see the European Union (EU) is planning the same course of action against the US. The newly forming superstate percieves the US as its biggest threat - that once it fully combines to the peak of its power, that the US will percieve it as an adversary and a threat and eventually become hostile to the new competition as it did to the soviet union. The signs are already showing. You see the EU isnt truely democratic. Yes, there are democratic figureheads - politicians from each country for example which make up the public democratic view of the EU that everyone sees on TV, but these people are only in it for their own countries and fight and bicker and such like to get their own way. Then there are the real controllers. There is no 'inner circle' as such but an assortment of secretive, power hungry people, unaccountable to the people of Europe but they work together in order unlike their counterparts. These are the people who make up and reinforce plans for European Armies and European Currencies even when the people generally oppose them - these are the masters of propaganda and planning. These are the people that have the power to make things happen in Europe. The european supported attack against the WTC didnt topple the US economy and government as was expected. Yes it was supported by the EU in secret - notice how quite a lot of the terrorists linked back to major Al-Quaeda cells in western europe? Not a coincidence. Of course the EU easily brushed this off as all EU countries went into an arrest terrorist frenzy, betraying their acomplices and pretending they were on the US side. All leading Al-Quaeda members who knew were executed (and not many knew) to keep it secret. Bin Laden has also betrayed his followers and is under the protection of the EU, probably hidden in some European country. But whats in it for the EU by keeping Bin Laden alive? You see while he lives, the US will always believe that Al-Quaeda still lives. This provides excellent cover for any covert terrorist operations the EU might want to perform in the future and also allows them to utilise Bin Ladens links with the middle east. Who do you think planted that video tape that pretended he was in Afghanistan still? And all the information implying that he was first camped in Tora Bora and now he's crossed the border into pakistan? its all misguiding lies. Bin laden had weeks to escape Afghanistan before the US 'sealed' it off. You really think he didnt leave while he had the chance? Noone ever suspects he's hiding in Western Europe though. The master plan of the EU Controllers is for nothing short of world domination - or world supremacy. To do this they will attempt to bring about the fall of the US by covert means and leave the EU to control the world. Only WE can stop this!! yes the 2 of us! we must start nowwwwwwww! ------------------------------------------------ heh - that was quite good. Makes a lovely conspiricy theory anyway doesnt it? Even think I could make a cool story out of that if it wasnt so inappropriate at this time. Ah give it 5 years. Umm at the top I said there was a coincidence but I went off track and forgot to write one in. I could add nukes and stuff too but I think it might ruin it. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	condensed version: do what you want (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 08:56:05 PM PST

	I'm not here to give advice, I just want to reassure everyone that they're special failures. Here, rub this pyramid on your privates and think positive thoughts.

	I especially like... (none / 0) (#6)
	by tkatchev on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 10:11:00 PM PST

	...the bit about "medically altering" your private parts. I wonder if SpaceGhoti is serious? That sounds like an utterly clueless attitude towards life and universe in general. -- Peace and much love...

	Storm (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 04:09:41 AM PST

	Dear SpaceGhoti: Instead of birth control we should have as many male children as possible. This will enable us to storm those Chinese and Indian (generally asian) mofos who consantly and irresponsibly overpopulate our planet and bring poverty to us and themselves. Those miserable little creatures must perish. Dear Wants: Indeed you must di something to stop this madness. Its in their best ineterst since there is no excuse for using birth control (especially in front of our Beloved Father the Ultimate Judge). I believe God has sent you to talk some sense into them. It is a holly mission and it is quite clear to me that you have been chosen.

	No! (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 04:59:11 AM PST

	Dear Anonymous Reader: You've got it all backwards! We must constantly strive to have a large surplus of female individuals, especially good-looking ones, but for a completely different reason: It is vital for my mating strategies, which depend upon a shortage of attractive men and a low percentage of lesbians in the female population. In hindsight, this post looks rather pathetic.

	cunning (none / 0) (#17)
	by PotatoError on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 07:29:36 AM PST

	yes of course! ive been wondering what the best strategy is for ages! now I can begin work on making it reality. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Correct (none / 0) (#28)
	by quelhorreur on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 04:13:18 AM PST

	I had never really thought about that possibility. Not even when I saw Dr Strangelove. Maybe the authorities should concider that option and start working on it. Some gene manipulation would also be useful and of course cloning. Chemicals are a savage method, nevertheless we should not ignore it just yet.

	You've been duped by the liberal media (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 06:06:33 AM PST

	as far as regards overpopulation. This is the same media that runs an hour special on the population crisis, punctuated by commercials telling you how much sex you can get once you buy this new gizmo. Doom crying special reports telling how we are running out of resources, punctuated by commercials saying you're not a man unless you drive a 3 ton truck, and give your family a 3000 square foot mansion to live in. Are you seeing the contradiction yet? America and Canada can easily support ten times their current population. There are towns in the midwest that are dying for lack of population. I'm sure Siberia and the other eastern provinces of Russia are in similar situations. As far as your other advice, please stop trying to break apart marriages. If nothing else, the sexual revolution has shown us the folly of recreation sex and open marriages, there are millions of children damaged from divorces caused by irresponsible parents thinking they have a right to continous sexual satisfaction at any cost. A. Rightmann

	Excuse me while I oversimplify the problem (none / 0) (#21)
	by First Incision on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 10:00:59 AM PST

	I live in Alabama. Say what you will about it's residents, but I think from a standpoint of climate and resources, this place is quite close to Heaven on earth. Southern cities like Atlanta and Birmingham and Nashville are literally bursting at the seams. Smaller towns are experiencing this too. People are discovering what a great place the South is, and moving here in droves. This week, I will be going to Indiana to visit my clan. I have a few hundred relatives that live in one of these dying Midwestern cities you mentioned. The place has half of its population from the 20's. There are whole sections of town that are abandoned. I will tell you why. It is FREAKING COLD up there! I still fail to see why anyone in their right mind would live up there. It is just not conducive to human existence. We should revel in our location, not fight against it. And then you mention Siberia! Sheesh. _ _ Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

	oh my Ghod! (none / 0) (#31)
	by nathan on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 07:40:29 AM PST

	This may be the most wonderful post that I've ever read. Allow me to summarise the 5ish's argument in part 2, as I read it: Your penis might just be too small, or you may be a lousy lover. So, you should either start wife-swapping or else get an operation on your cock! This is so typical that it is positively delicious to read. How could anyone possibly mock this? It's its own best criticism. All I can say, 5ish, is that when your wife starts proposing slicing into your genitals, you recognize that it was in the cards. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Mixed (none / 0) (#18)
	by Right Hand Man on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 08:27:40 AM PST

	The advice given to Wants was excellent. While it is the obligation of us all to 'be fruitful and multiply', family relations tend to suffer if tact is tossed out the window. As for destroying any contraceptive devices they may have, I would highly recommend it. Much like the retribution dealt to those involved with the abortion trade, it is sometimes necessary to take extreme steps to ensure that our society doesn't crumble under the weight of Godless heathens who seem to delight in destroying everything He has created. I cannot lavish as much praise on the advice provided to Fearful. This man needs to pull his wife aside and push her nose into the bible. It is quite clear the God expects wives to be subservient to their husbands, not expecting them to impersonate some wicked fantasy their wives dreamed up from watching re-runs of Shaka Zulu. He should simply tell his wife that she must rid herself of these insane fantasies and make due with whatever 'equipment' is available within the marriage. He should keep her away from any corrupting influences for a reasonable period of time (maybe lock her in the root cellar), then test her to see whether she has rid herself of her extramarital desires. If not, I am sure that his church could help to push her in the right direction, if not cure her weakness of faith permanently. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	I pray for fearful's marriage (none / 0) (#20)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 09:14:58 AM PST

	and I hoped the advice I gave them would keep them together, fo rthey seem to be in a rough shape. Many American women have been brainwashed into believing that it's weak to submit or surrender, and will often do very self-destructive things beofre submitting. I hope that a little sinful play avoids the temptation for a bigger sin, adn down the road they may start reading the Bible together. A. Rightmann

	where is the incest? (none / 0) (#27)
	by philipm on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 09:43:19 PM PST

	Wasn't this article supposed to be about incest? The title definitely implies that we would se some brother-sister or cousin-cousin action. Where is it? They are gonna shut off the power in my trailer soon. --philipm

	D'oh (none / 0) (#29)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 04:30:46 AM PST

	I had totally forgotten to get a refill on my birth control pills! Thanks for reminding me, Adam! You're a peach. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Standard question: (none / 0) (#30)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 05:58:04 AM PST

	Why do you hate God? -- Peace and much love...

	Typical response: (none / 0) (#32)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 07:41:11 AM PST

	Why do you believe in a god? What does this have to do with birth control? Don't play your xian mind games with me, Spanky. Heh. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	You didn't answer my question. (none / 0) (#33)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 07:51:54 AM PST

	You simply dodged it by posting some offensive self-rationalizations. The question still stands: Why do you hate God? -- Peace and much love...

	Because... (none / 0) (#34)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 02:26:06 PM PST

	it's a silly, illogical and pointless question. :) It's also a loaded question ("Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"), and loaded questions are usually a waste of time. Not believing in something and hating that something are not the same thing. One does not follow the other. I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that line of reasoning. Simply because I know that there is no such thing as your god, or any gods, that does not mean I hate your god, or any gods. I cannot hate god because I know god doesn't exist--therefore, what is the point in hating something I don't believe in? But of course you know this. I've explained my point of view on this "question" several times outside of this diary. If you continue to not grasp what I am explaining to you, you have no one to blame but yourself. I would suggest moving on... You also seem to be fixated on "hate". Perhaps you should work on that hateful outlook rather than spending your time and energy on blocking out the views of others. It seems to be a great waste on your part. Have a fabulous day! Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	It is not a loaded question. (none / 0) (#35)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 02:42:29 PM PST

	If you don't believe in God, then you don't have any reason to fervently convince total strangers of your atheism at the drop of a hat. It's as if I was to rave on about how I'm definitely not, no way, absolutely impossible, beating my wife. What you profess, in other words, is just your garden-variety, run-of-the-mill brand of rationalization. True atheists do not need to convince themselves of their own non-belief -- because they already know. What you are doing to yourself, on the other hand, is just psychological autotraining layered on top of a very developed guilt complex. What did God ever do to you? It's almost as if you regret coming into this world in the first place. -- Peace and much love...

	Let's turn this one around (none / 0) (#36)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 04:33:34 PM PST

	If you don't believe in God, then you don't have any reason to fervently convince total strangers of your atheism at the drop of a hat. Likewise, if you believe in God, then you don't have any reason to fervently convince total strangers of your belief at the drop of a hat. True religionists do not need to defend their belief in God; God simply exists, and they know it in a very true and personal manner. What you are doing to yourself, on the other hand, is just psychological autotraining layered on top of a very developed doubt complex. What did Lint ever do to you? It's almost as if you feel threatened by her independence and individuality simply because she chooses to exercise them. A troll's true colors.

	You're wasting your time (none / 0) (#37)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 08:50:52 PM PST

	As have I, the big dupe that I am. He's a troll, plain and simple. Don't let him suck you into a biased, circular argument... they feed off of that. Sad, innit? Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Oh, I know (none / 0) (#38)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 09:09:58 PM PST

	I've been matching what passes for wits with this fellow for a while, now. I fully understand the type of arguments I can expect from him: mostly irrational dogmatic rhetoric couched in terms of attempts at logical proof. Most of the debates I have with him end up with him deriding me for my "liberalist" attitude instead of attempting to prove his statements with information or logic. He has even, in the past, attempted to defend his statements by stating (no joke) that he doesn't need proof, anybody with eyes to see will believe him. Many times I let his statements refute themselves, but every now and then I like to point out the inconsistencies in his worldview. He probably is as you claim, but every now and then I get this nagging thought that he might actually believe what he says, and that usually prompts me to twit him for it. A troll's true colors.

	Could it be his wacky Russian sense of humor? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 10:35:12 PM PST

	Or something lost in the translation, perhaps? Maybe he really is trying to be a thoughtful and respectful debate partner, yet doesn't know the English translations for "please", "thank you" and "I'm an ass"? Which is okay... my grasp on the Cyrillic languages isn't all that great, either. But who can say? I'm really at a loss trying to explain how such a person could actually exist and believe the illogical mumbo-jumbo he passes as argument. I'm finding him increasingly hilarious, though. And he's a good way to kill time around here. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Liberalist "philosophy". (none / 0) (#43)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 03:24:02 AM PST

	I quote: "...believe in... ...argument..." Thank you for once again falling into the liberalist honeypot. Don't get a stomach-ache. -- Peace and much love...

	So... (none / 0) (#54)
	by Lint on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 11:17:54 AM PST

	You don't believe what you're saying when you make your arguments, tkatchev? Well alrighty, then. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	it is true (5.00 / 1) (#41)
	by nathan on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 10:39:47 PM PST

	The only viable world view, in our enlightened scientific age, is monistic materialism. (Proof: Occam's Razor.) Consequently, the material world may be considered as a post-Einsteinian update of the Newtonian clockwork universe. The brain, which is made of matter (proof: the universe is monistic,) is subject to the same natural laws as all other objects and entities. Therefore, the "mind" (ie, the feedback-system epiphenomenon manifesting from the nervous system) is a manifestation of purely material phenomena. Therefore, what we call "free will" is better regarded as a manifestation of the behaviouristically trained nervous system. It is called free in order that it may be efficiently and productively conditioned in order to fulfill its destiny as a successful biological automaton within a world of such (most of inferior sophistication.) Were it not called free, proper conditioning of the socializing instincts would be discordant with its own self-perception - but it is no more free than the tides are free to defy the moon or a raindrop is free not to fall to the earth. In fact, there is no meaning to "human being" except as a socialized creature, of specific biology, predicted to fall within certain norms and tolerances. In fact, a monistically materialistic world could contain nothing else. I suggest you take up this rather hard cheese with Aristotle, old boy. It's getting beyond my competence. Materialism as an apology for communism is left as an exercise for the reader. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	That is interesting (none / 0) (#53)
	by Lint on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 11:12:47 AM PST

	But I'd rather take it up with Parmenides or Hume. ;) I agree that if humans are viewed as they truly are, a higher-order animal, it is easy to see that we carry out the same instinctual behaviors found in our lesser animal counterparts (evolution of the brain has given humans the personality and behavior traits necessary to carry out these instinctive impulses in a way that defines our society). So if monistic materialism is the answer, shouldn't most other human socialization instincts also be called into question along with the invention of "free will", including law, justice, morality, social order, marital monogamy... belief in a supreme spiritual being who created and controls the universe? But if these things aren't subject to the same laws of all other objects and entities, how can they exist in a monistically materialistic universe? And what, then, would be the role of the human "will" (not free), or wouldn't it fall into the category of human instinct-- an invention of the human mind, a manifestation of the physical brain, to give life purpose or meaning? Interesting indeed. You've brought up a very deep topic which I'll have to think more about, but it'll be worthwhile. Thanks. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	What is your problem? (none / 0) (#44)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 03:27:35 AM PST

	Really, does it matter whether I provide "arguments" or not? Ultimately, the call for "arguments" is nothing but a thinly-veiled liberalist genital-size war. Which is not something I want to participate in, thank you. -- Peace and much love...

	But you do it so often! (nt) (none / 0) (#45)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 03:39:50 AM PST

	A troll's true colors.

	If this is the case, tkatchev... (none / 0) (#49)
	by Lint on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 12:59:37 PM PST

	Why are you displaying your liberalist propaganda with such reckless abandon? If, indeed, you ask "Why do I hate god", and follow any response I make with, "you are rationalizing your atheist stance", you are indeed making an argument against atheism, for xianity, against my argument defending my stance on atheism, for your god, against liberalism, for fallacious logic, and so on. Please stop contradicting yourself. When you make a statement such as the type to which you are given, you are making an argument. Typing on a message board is not the same as speaking without reason... here you can actually think about what you're trying to say before you put it down for all to see! You do not understand what liberalism means, but here you are not alone. Wielding the term "liberalist" like a weapon against those with whom you disagree does not earn you respect and does not make the gist of what you're attempting to get across clearer. It seems that "liberalist" is some sort of all-purpose insult for the feeble-minded conservative, at a loss for what he or she is really trying to say. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	"Liberalist" != "Liberal". (none / 0) (#50)
	by tkatchev on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:04:45 AM PST

	Thank you for your understanding. -- Peace and much love...

	you first (none / 0) (#48)
	by johnny ambiguous on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 12:19:37 PM PST

	Why do you, tkatchev, hate God? Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.