My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an 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 It is no longer maintained.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 if you have questions.

My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag

Author:

Adam Rightmann

Topic:

Sex

Posted:

Oct 17, 2001

Comments:

In this week's column, Adam pleads for neighborhood unity, and helps a young wife with a bukkake party.

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!
	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!
	My inlaws are not fertile!
	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.

Hello gentlereaders:

I come to you this Wednesday instead of my usual Thursday becuase our readers are screaming for new material. So, I pushed up my deadline; anything for you, gentle readers.

Also, next week, I deliver a special report on Halloween costumes for the kids!

Dear Adam,

There is a family in my neighborhood that I'm not sure about. They're foreign looking, maybe even Arab, and their house is the only one in the neighborhood not flying a flag. What should I do?

Patriotic American

Dear Pat,

Well, it's good of you to be concerned, for they may indeed be another terrorist sleeper cell of Osama Bin Laden's. Be sure to let your local law enforcement know your concerns.

Also, you should reach out to them, as foreigners, they may not be as aware of their patriotic duty as they could be. Buy them a flag or two, and round up about 20 or 30 burly neighbors to go over to their house and present them with the flag, even help them put it up. Let them know that you will all be around, willing to help them out, and answer any questions about America that they have. And bring some lit torches to make it a festive occasion.

Dear Adam,

One night after fulfilling our marital duties, my husband said his fantasy was a bukakke party. The next day, he denied saying it. I love my husband, and want to make him happy. but I have no idea what a bukkake party is. My dictionary is no help, can you give me some help?

Mrs. Puzzled in Poughkeepsie

Dear Mrs. Poughkeepsie,

The internet is a wonderful thing, a few moments of searching on the web led me to a site that explained that bukkake is a Japanese noodle dish. Apparently you splash or splatter the noodle batter into a boiling water to cook them. For everyone's use, I have appended the following links to bukkake recipes and pictures.

	Mr. Rightmann (3.00 / 2) (#6)
	by Husaria on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 12:59:37 PM PST

	Dear Mr. Rightmann, After noting your posts, I've come to the conclusion your mind has failed you. First: Bukakke is also a Japanese sex fantasy. What search engine have you been using? Shouldn't you, as a writer for the Internet's most controversial site, check all aspects of a topic, and not just one certain thing, as you said. Second: My own family is from Poland, (I am first generation) We don't have flags flying, should we also have our neighbors come over with torches forcing us to put up a flag? Will you report to the FBI that I am not flying a flag? Things like that is making the terrorists win their cause, making America a police state, where if you aren't outwardly patrotic, you will be ostracized. Patriotism isn't wrong, in fact, it was considered politically incorrect before, and now, if you don't show it, you're bad, well, that's just playing into the terrorists hands. Third: In your letter to the family of the boy not following the right Chruch, and now is in hell? How can you simply tell which church is the true religion? Did God say the Catholic is what you must follow to go to Heaven? Although Peter was handed the keys? But who gave him the authority to give the keys afterwards. You can interpet this many ways and your literal interpetation is saying that God did not appoint a successor to his Church because the Church is God's and not Peter's. And what translation are you using? The Bible has been modified and translated many times. Predestination? A set of phrases taken completely out of context. Anyways, being a Catholic, this might be blasphemous, but I believe God intended His Word to individual interpetation and not just someone feeding it to someone else, telling them what to do. Oh, and get yourself into the 21st century, thanks. Sig sigger

	Relax (5.00 / 2) (#7)
	by westgeof on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 01:13:41 PM PST

	Calm down, don't take any of it personally. The world is full of advice columns, all different, and that's all that this is. Mr. Rightman is entitled to his own opinion, and may express that opinion freely here. If you have different views, and would like to present a counterpoint to his ideas, you may do so, but please try to voice it in a polite manner. Perhaps you could even write your own article with your own advice on the matter. I happen to disagree with Mr. Rightman on many issues as well, but unless it's a matter of fact rather than opinion, I generally keep it to myself. Maybe you could try again with a bit more persuasion and a bit less persecution? As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	You are wrong! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Well Adjusted Individual on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:22:36 AM PST

	Mr. Husaria Mr. Rightmann is a man of good and I very much admire him - despite his apparent hatred towards me and my Baptist beliefs. Although we do not always agree on most subjects Mr. Rightmann is doing his best to help "those in need" by sharing his wisdom with the folks that write to him. There are no sites on the internet as controversial as this one and Mr. Rightmann is a shining example as to why this is such a great site. BTW - until I read Mr. Rightmann's answer on what bukakke was I hadn't had the faintest idea as to what it was. -- May the lord strike down those who are not rightous.

	I don't hate Baptists (none / 0) (#19)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 07:44:20 AM PST

	I just pray that they see the errors of their way and return to the loving embrace of the true Church. A. Rightmann

	Since I am a sensible man (none / 0) (#28)
	by Well Adjusted Individual on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 01:51:08 PM PST

	Mr. Rightmann - since you have a gift, that of persuation - I ask you to write an article for this controversial yet democratic site on the virtues of the Catholic Church. As I said, I am a sensible man and I will consider your reasons as to why the Church of Peter (as you put it) is more rightous than my love for Jesus Christ in himself and none of the idols. Who knows sir, I may even consider your reasoning and then you could orient me better. -- May the lord strike down those who are not rightous.

	O.C. (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:16:42 AM PST

	The Church has been in thrall to the demiurge ever since the vile Council of Nicea abandoned the true gnostic revelation of Christ. You are all but a fraction of the True God as is the twisted being Yahweh you mistakenly worship. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" -John 10:34 "And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." -Genesis 3:32 "I have said, Ye are gods." -Psalms 82:6

	Please get an account, sir (none / 0) (#35)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 09:26:50 AM PST

	You are obviously a man of theological learning, and perhaps we can have a dialog and learn from each other. Perhaps even you will learn the error of your ways and return to the True Church. Plus, you did not link to a Jack Chick comic. A. Rightmann

	Dogmatically, only Catholics go to Heaven (none / 0) (#18)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 07:39:42 AM PST

	that is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Third Secret of Fatima makes it painfully clear that reaching out to other faiths without stressing that the only salvation is within the Church is bad. A. Rightmann

	The legalistic Roman Catholics at it again!!! (none / 0) (#20)
	by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 08:53:29 AM PST

	Look, nobody is disputing that salvation only comes from the Church. However, the question of which church is The Church is still open to discussion. If you're faced with a choice, though, I'd pick the church that has kept the traditions of the original Apostolic church. That way, at least you know that your beliefs are closest to what the Apostles believed. (Hint: that church is definitely not the Catholic church.) -- Peace and much love...

	But, (3.00 / 2) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 11:12:06 AM PST

	It is of course The catholic church

	So? (none / 0) (#24)
	by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 11:49:36 AM PST

	Hubbard's monstrosity is also "The" Church of Scientology. The Catholics may believe that they hold some sort of dogmatical primate over other churches, but theologically and historically their claim just doesn't hold up. Sorry. -- Peace and much love...

	The "true" Catholic Church. (none / 0) (#32)
	by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 09:16:37 PM PST

	Are you absolutely sure about that? Absolutely, absolutely, totally sure? Really, absolutely, totally, totally, TOTALLY sure? What if you're wrong? You can be sure, too. Mary can't save you. Pope John Paul 2 can't save you. Only Jesus can. And only if you let Him. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	jack chick is a fraud and a phoney (none / 0) (#40)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 04:21:23 AM PST

	e.g. his explanation of fatima, medjugorje, etc: 'must be satan appearing' etc etc. yeah right, prove it genius. Anyone who reckons that they're kneeling down in front of the virgin mary who doesn't bleed when they're pricked and can't be towed away (!) is telling the truth. full stop. fundamentalist christianity is unmitigated bullshit, and until someone can explain fatima, medjugorje to me in rational scientific terms (e.g. tripped-out kids, hallucination, something) then it will remain unmitigated bullshit. aside: being a catholic is great. losing a religious debate? Pull the pin! "explain fatima, genius". Hah. The catholic church was right all along, and no amount of fundamentalist bullshit, or islam, or wicca, or [insert shitty religion here] can change that. (not that i'm a good catholic at all.)

	Easy enough! (none / 0) (#41)
	by Craig McPherson on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 07:19:58 AM PST

	Explain Fatima and Medjugorje, huh? I can do it. My dictionary doesn't have an entry for "Fatima", so I can only assume you've made a typographical error and meant to say "Fat-time," as in popular online serial Fat-Time Charlie. As its author will freely admit, Fat-Time Charlie is fiction. Yes, it contains a great deal of insight about human life. Yes, it's a metaphor that can provide us with valuable lessons. But no, it's not true. Sorry. As for Medjugorje, it's all fake. If the town even exists, and that's a big if, the so called "stories" are complete fabrications and anything that anyone claims to have seen there are mere hoaxes. Catholic "miracles" have all been disproven by dedicated groups of skeptics and debunkers who use science and logic to disprove these hoaxes. I could easily make a website that claims that every Thursday at 4AM, the ghost of Sherlock Holmes rises up out of my toilet and tells me deep secrets about world events, like the location of Chandra Levy. I can even "dictate" speeches from the ghost of Sherlock Holmes and post them on my website. I can claim that Sherlock Holmes told me to tell everybody to send me all their money. Would that make YOU send me your money? No, of course not. Because I lied about the ghost of Sherlock Holmes, just like all the "Virgin" Mary (who only stayed a virgin until shortly after Christ's birth, by the way) stories are made up. You Catholics need to stop being so gullible and believing absurd faerie tales written by human beings. Only if you put your faith in Jesus Christ and accept Him as savior will you be led out of the darkness in which you live. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	Catholics annoy me. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 11:42:46 AM PST

	Definition of a Catholic: A person who believes that Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans can go to Heaven, but Protestants can't.

	damn straight... (none / 0) (#23)
	by Frithiof on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 11:44:15 AM PST

	protestants and homosexuals will burn in the fiery pits of hell for all of eternity. -Frith

	Actually, that sort of makes sense... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by tkatchev on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 11:52:58 AM PST

	...in a perverted, Catholic sense. I mean, if you consider one person who never learned about Christ and just went one believing in some kiddie fairytale nonsense (i.e. "Wiccans") and another person who learned about Christ and rejected Him anyways, (protestants) obivously you could make the case that the second person acted worse than the first. -- Peace and much love...

	That might have flown 1,000 years ago (none / 0) (#26)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 12:59:09 PM PST

	when the world was larger, and communications poor. But nowadays, you don't have to listen hard to hear God, Catholics are everywhere. A. Rightmann

	mob rule (5.00 / 2) (#8)
	by alprazolam on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 01:25:11 PM PST

	While the sight of a dozen torch and flag bearing men might frighten a recently immigrated family, there are perhaps more appropriate actions to be taken. I would suggest the neighborhood association gets together and votes for a proposition that requires each house in the neighborhood display an American flag of at least 5 square feet in a location which is visible to the street. This is a much more effective means of bringing "solidarity" to America's heartland.

	I like your way of thinking! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 01:32:44 PM PST

	And think how heartened those C-130 crews dropping food and radios on the starving Afghanis would be knowing that every American was flying their flag. It would make the flak and AA fire that much less frightening. A. Rightmann

	Freedom (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 08:11:14 AM PST

	I would suggest the neighborhood association gets together and votes for a proposition that requires each house in the neighborhood display an American flag of at least 5 square feet in a location which is visible to the street. I thought we were talking about America. Where people have the choice to fly the flag or fly the bird. Maybe we don't need Democracy in times like these. How about a Dictatorship maybe that would work!

	sometimes you have to make sacrifices (none / 0) (#45)
	by alprazolam on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 12:07:17 PM PST

	and in the face of tragedy, maybe we should sacrifice a little bit of democracy for some deserved solidarity.

	Benjamin Franklin said... (none / 0) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 06:19:48 AM PST

	"Those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither libery nor safety." I think that fits well in this time.

	benjamin franklin (none / 0) (#47)
	by alprazolam on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 11:28:59 AM PST

	never lived to see jet planes crashed into skyscrapers. frightening times indeed.

	Benjamin Franklin lived through a war (none / 0) (#53)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 05:20:53 PM PST

	He might not have seen jets crash into a building, but he lived through a war and many of his friends and neighbors died.

	important (none / 0) (#48)
	by YOUARESTUPID on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:20:25 PM PST

	appearantly you thought your rant was important enough to post twice, cudos to you. I don't have a flag in my yard, i choose not to suddenly become patriotic. it seems like a bandwagon, and the article (sarcastic or not) seems more like an angry mob solution. let them exercise their right to be themselves and not be terrorists. If we use intimidation we become terrorists. so go to the neighbors with burly men. Better yet fly a plane into thier house.

	Racial Profiling (3.66 / 3) (#11)
	by Richard C Suquer on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 03:31:27 PM PST

	It sounds like "Patriotic American" is doing racial profiling, and he is probably a racist too. Just because someone is an Arab doesn't mean they are a terrorist. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure it will only be a matter of weeks or months until some white power types hijack a plane and fly it into a building (probably in the Holy Land of Israel). Then what will you do? White USians are just as capable of destructive acts... we've seen this in their history of oppression of people of color. Maybe your neighbors are not flying the flag because they are pacifists. Or maybe, like me, they are just sick and tired of USia's imperialist tendencies. The truth is flags, and the nations which wave them, are symbols of Fascism and should be stopped. No one has ever been happy under the iron heel of nationalism, and today is no exception. -- Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

	I object to the term "people of colour." (5.00 / 3) (#27)
	by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 01:40:41 PM PST

	White is a colour too, you know. Dictionary.Com: WHITE - The achromatic color of maximum lightness; the color of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; the complement or antagonist of black, the other extreme of the neutral gray series. Although typically a response to maximum stimulation of the retina, the perception of white appears always to depend on contrast. Aside from what I assume to be a silly typographical error ("color"), I think the definition is quite clear: white IS a colour, and by using the phrase "people of colour" to exclude Caucasian-Americans, you're practicing gross racism and discrimination. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	White is an anti-colour (2.33 / 3) (#29)
	by Richard C Suquer on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 03:36:16 PM PST

	As any child can tell you, white is not really a color. If you color with a white crayon in a coloring book, it will not show up on the white coloring book paper, therefore, white is not a color. Black, on the other hand, shows up clearly. So obviously black is an actual color, whereas white is not. You can go ahead and try to quote the dictionary to me, but I'll tell you right now that the dictionary is just a tool used to suppress the free-thinking of the masses. If you really want a dictionary, you should check out A Peoples History of the United States. Finally, an encyclopedia that doesn't endorse fascism!! All wordplay aside, the white race has been oppressing the other races since the dawn of time. If you rub white crayon all over your coloring book, and hold it under the light, you will see a greasy white film covering the pages. This is a symbol of the oppressive nature of the white male. In the same way, whites have been covering people of color with a scummy residue, preventing their freedom of expression. And I for one am outraged! -- Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

	Some basic physics for you. (4.00 / 2) (#30)
	by Craig McPherson on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 06:59:12 PM PST

	Your childish crayon experiments aside (and the fact that you only tried it with WHITE paper and not BLACK paper just proves that you're a very vile sort of racist), white IS a colour, which you'd know if you understood even basic physics. I guess I'll have to teach you, since you obviously weren't paying attention back in Podunk High School, where you probably graduated third in your class -- of four. Visible light consists of that range of the electromagnetic spectrum with a wavelength of between about 380 and 690 nanometers (it can vary a bit from person to person). There's nothing special about this range of light; rather, the fact that it's "visible" is solely a function of the human eye. Other animal species have different ranges of light that they can see, but when Jesus was designing the human eye, He decided that we'd be able to see about 380 to 690 nanometers, and that's just the way it is. The human eye contains three different types of cones, one for each of the three primary colours -- blue, green, and red (NOT red, blue, and yellow like your child-molesting Kindergarten teacher told you), in order by increasing wavelength. Again, there's nothing universal about these colours that makes them "primary" -- it's solely a function of the human eye, and Jesus could easily have chosen to use completely different primary colors, or two of them, or five of them, or none at all. But as it is, the human eye has three primary colours programmed into it: blue (centred on 437 nanometers), green (centred on 533 nanometers), and red (centred on 564 nanometers). Each type of cone is most stimulated by one wavelength of light: the wavelength associated with its primary colour. As wavelength of light increases or decreases from the cone's primary colour wavelength, the cone is stimulated less and less, until eventually the response curve drops to zero. For example, the green cone is stimulated weakly by some of the lower-wavelength reddish colours, but the blue cone isn't stimulated at all by red, and no cone is stimulated by wavelengths outside the visible light specturm. We can see an entire colour spectrum based on how much a particular wavelength of light stimulates multiple cones. Thus, to the human eye, every colour of visible light can be seen as a composite of red, green, and blue. White light, unlike your racist assertion, is a composite of light from the ENTIRE visible colour spectrum. If you mix red, green, and blue light, you get white light. This is how computer monitors and televisions work: they draw red, green, and blue dots in different combinations to replicate any colour in the spectrum. Red, green, and blue are known as the "primary additive colours" because they add up to white. Now, how do the old "red, blue, and yellow" fit in? They don't, actually, but MAGENTA, CYAN, and yellow do. Those are known as the three primary pigments, or the three "primary subtractive colours." These pigments are unique in that each of them absorbs one of the three primary colours of light. If you mix all three of the primary pigments, they will absorb all visible light, and thus you'll get black. So, to sum it up, with light, the primary colours are red, blue, and green, and if you mix all three, you get white light. Any colour of light can be produced by mixing those three primary additive colours. If no visible light is present, you have black. With the three primary pigments, cyan, magenta, and yellow, if none of them are present in a substance and white light shines on the substance, the substance will appear white. Each of the three primary pigments blocks one of the three primary colours, so you can produce an object of any colour by mixing the three primary pigments. If you mix all three primary pigments and shine white light on it, all the white light will be absorbed and you'll see black. I hope this is clear to you. Have a nice day. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	You are a trichromat chauvinist. (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 09:11:08 PM PST

	How dare you assert that all human beings can only see three colors? This may well be false.

	Tetrachromaticity (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 02:27:30 PM PST

	Actually, all it takes to see the fourth primary color, squant, is the proper browser plugin.

	Squant is a HOAX, VIRUS ALERT (5.00 / 1) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 02:37:25 PM PST

	The "Squant" page is absolute BULL. There is no such color, as any scientist will tell you. The "facts" on the page are absolute lies. If it were just a joke, it would be a good one, but it's not: the "browser plugin", in addition to not working (crashing out with some fake error messages) contains virsuses that can trash your system. Just scan the file with an up-to-date version of Norton Antivirus if you don't believe me. There is no Squant, it is a hoax, it is a lie, it is false, and it is a scam.

	No (1.00 / 3) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 06:37:34 AM PST

	You're all fucking morons. Black and white are NOT colors. A color, by definition, will reflect light at a different wavelength than when it originally arrived at a colored surface. Colors can also be made translucent, or see-through for your smaller minds. In case you didn't know, a TRUE white will reflect ALL light at it's original wavelength. TRUE black will absorb light and not reflect any. This, captian obvious, is why black cars get so damned hot in the sun. Also, you cannot make a "clear" white or black. So, no, black and white are NOT colors. I suggest you check your dictionary.com definitions before you make an idiot out of yourself.

	Can you actually READ the dictionary? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
	by Craig McPherson on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:31:07 PM PST

	I rated the above post a 2 not because it deserves such a high rating (it doesn't), but to reverse the existing 0 rating which I considered unfair, thus making the comment visible again. Yes, the parent post is puerile, idiotic, and totally without factual base, but at controversial news and discussion site Adequacy.Org, even the puerile and idiot have a place (as objects of scorn and ridicule) as long as they play by the rules. The only thing about the parent post that struck me as a bit trollish is the bizarre and repeated absence of the letter "u" from the word "colour," but we'll just assume that the poster is a poor typist and let the issue slide. Now, as for those dictionary entries: White - The achromatic color of maximum lightness; the color of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; the complement or antagonist of black, the other extreme of the neutral gray series. Black - The achromatic color value of minimum lightness or maximum darkness; the color of objects that absorb nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; one extreme of the neutral gray series, the opposite being white. It's a bit odd that the dictionary entries make the same typo of the word colour that the above poster does, but Godwin's Law dictates that it's probably just the result of random chance. -- If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

	Wrong again! (3.00 / 2) (#39)
	by Richard C Suquer on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 08:48:50 PM PST

	Wrong again! The problem here is that your basic principles are false. You make statements based on your so-called "physics," yet this "physics" has yet to be voted on by the people of the world. Until a democractic vote is taken by the United Nations to make "physics" an officially recognized belief system, I refuse to acknowledge it's existence. So at this point we must turn to more common and well-respected beliefs such as the "coloring book test." And by using this highly effective system, I have shown you the inherently anti-coloredness of White. -- Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

	youaresilly (none / 0) (#50)
	by YOUARESTUPID on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:39:41 PM PST

	the very spelling of color shows you are an anglophile. you're some high-and-mighty snob. granted spelling is not always an indication so extreme, but coupled with your vaguely racist comments i would have to say that it is in your case. why sit and say that Physics isn't real because it isn't a religion. you show that your I.Q. is 70 or lower just by trying that. go read a book, oh and nothing written by a grand wizard, supremesist. the guy has facts on his side, things that can mathematically be proven. you've got, "physics hasn't been democratically accepted yet". It doesn't need to be. There are some truths that are self-evident. 2+2=4, i don't believe that has been voted on by the democracy, maybe we should waste billions in taxes voting on things that prove themselves. I'd call you illiterate but you wrote the rant, though in hindsight you probably dictated it, dictator.

	Re: Some basic physics for you. (none / 0) (#54)
	by sardu on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 08:55:42 AM PST

	Thank you for explaining that to everyone, bravo. Now, based on your explanation, please name one person who is white, and one person who is black.

	Okay (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 7th, 2001 at 04:53:42 PM PST

	One person who is black: Michael Jackson One person who is white: Michael Jackson That was easy!

	achromatic (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 01:58:02 PM PST

	Hmm whats the second word of that definition? achromatic? Hmm meaning WITHOUT COLOR QED, bitch. From Greek akhrmatos : a-, <b>without</b>; see a-1 + khrma, khrmat-, <b>color</b>.]

	I feel that the advice posted above is very (none / 0) (#13)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 07:33:06 PM PST

	misleading. The United States of America have long been about freedom. The freedom to do as you see fit. How free are you when your neighbours force you to do something that you do not want to? It is sad to see, but America seems to be gradually growing free of the "melting pot" of its international culture. I fear to see the day, but it may yet arrive in my lifetime. The day that America becomes more like Canada. The day that America's International Culture is more like a multi coloured fruit salad, than a big 'ol pot of stew. What are your thoughts on this, Mr. Rightmann?

	Sarcasm (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 11:06:11 PM PST

	I admit that sarcasm is often difficult to catch when conveyed with the written word. The response seemed to me to be a jab at the jingoistic madness and extreme nationalism brewing in our (I'd better say "great" here or risk being burned at the stake) country.

	It could be that your neighbors are (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 12:27:23 AM PST

	Jehovas Witnesses... This is especially likely if you live in Utah for example. Aparently, Joseph Smith had some hatred toward democracy and so he didn't allow his followers to have any flags or to say the pledge of aliegence. In this case, you could try tell them about going to church and stuff. They will probably see the error of their ways at that point.

	Umm, that would be Mormons (none / 0) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 08:16:51 AM PST

	not Jehova's Witnesses. They both come knocking on your door occasionally but one group believes in having multiple wives while the other group likes to kidnap and murder people. They're all almost as wacky as those catholic guys.

	general over article (none / 0) (#49)
	by YOUARESTUPID on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:28:39 PM PST

	first off way to go, keep using those great, derogatory words like foreigners. second-bukkake has another, slightly more sexual meaning which applies more readily to the term "party". if her husband had just said bukkake, she'd be in the clear. but her husband said bukkake PARTY, which to me would suggest something else. Here's what that is: 15-???? men come over, these men encircle the woman, said woman helps-please-as many men as she can, all 15-??? men ejaculate into a cup or bowl or funnel, woman greedily drinks male ejaculate spilling much on herself. like i said, the man said party, indicating more than just you and him. hope these "marital duties" don't compromise your obviously christian values.

	This sounds rather contrived (none / 0) (#51)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 05:49:11 AM PST

	This not what I found when I used a search engine to find out about bukkake, though perhaps I used a more decent search engine than you did. A. Rightmann

	Crazy Foreigners (none / 0) (#56)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 12:34:31 AM PST

	These foreigners are obviously plotting to kill George W. Bush. If you are a true citizen of the United States of America you will act now and save our president. You must go to their house at night buck naked and take a crap on their front lawn. This will intimidate them into flying their flags and becoming true Americans. If this does not work than you must go to your local post office and urinate on the people standing in line. This is a sure way to get these people to become patriots and thus save our nation from further terrorism. You have your duty, only you can save Uncle Sam.

	Crazy Foreigners (none / 0) (#57)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 12:35:02 AM PST

	These foreigners are obviously plotting to kill George W. Bush. If you are a true citizen of the United States of America you will act now and save our president. You must go to their house at night buck naked and take a crap on their front lawn. This will intimidate them into flying their flags and becoming true Americans. If this does not work than you must go to your local post office and urinate on the people standing in line. This is a sure way to get these people to become patriots and thus save our nation from further terrorism. You have your duty, only you can save Uncle Sam.

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.