All of us at one point and time in our lives feel lonely, isolated, destitute, and depressed. It is worse so when you feel that no one really knows you for who you really are. This is what most of us find ourselves battling with every day. There is a piece of you; a large part of what makes you – you, and you can’t share it with anyone. Our only outlet is a backlit screen pushing threads and topics across the screen communicating with those few others who not only understand the plight but, suffer from it too. If it has not happened to you yet, it will. The computer will no longer provide you comfort and none of the topics speak to you anymore. You are feeling the urge to seek acceptance from someone else.
But how do you do it? What on earth could be a good ice breaker to introduce someone into the world of zoosexuality? As we have seen many times before there are very few, if any, people that we can outright trust. Families have turned their very own children over to police or self righteous psychologists. It’s very hard to find a friend who will keep such a secret safe. And unless you met your significant other through a zoo friendly environment chances are they will take to the idea as well as getting a third wheel for the weekend.
What is one to do? The first thing you MUST do is be careful! With so many people out there wanting to show their moral superiority by literally enslaving us to their beliefs, you can’t be too cautious. But what exactly is going on in someone’s head when you break the news to them? We all know the unfortunate thought process of close minded people. I will speak of people who are truly open minded and willing to entertain ideas that are different than their own. Believe it or not there are people like this out there. These people usually have a high CQ, cultural quotient, and EQ emotional quotient. [Both CQ and EQ readings are included in my current study – if you are interested in receiving a free test please email me and ask to take part in the study Dogbertzoo@gmail.com]
Even though Chin & Gaynier are professors on global management and leadership in their 2006 work they introduced the Global Leadership Competency (GLC) model. This seven level model was originally designed to gauge and map progress on ones journey through different cultures. In the opening statements of their work they state that many times people “confuse recognition with judgment and it is judgment, particularly negative stereotypes, which feed discrimination”. I feel applying the GLC to any behavior labeled ‘socially deviant’ would provide perfect feedback from either a person or group of people.
There are seven levels of competencies, in order from the first level to the final one: ignorance, awareness, understanding, appreciation, acceptance, internalization and adaptation. These different levels perfectly demonstrate what someone will go through when exposed to a lifestyle different than their own. We will walk through all seven steps and try to apply them to the mind of a heterosexual as if a zoosexual had come out to them.
Believe it or not, most people are truly ignorant to the existence of a zoosexual orientation let alone the fact that people actually participate in it. It is a very short step and could be considered a stagnate or staging step that a person can live in forever. Once a previously unknown behavior becomes known the subject immediately steps onto the next step, awareness. Awareness is a pivotal step where people can easily become stuck. This is the knee-jerk step where an immediate feeling is generated. Usually the person will feel inclined or disinclined toward the newly recognized behavior. One of three different feelings can be immediate; positive feelings, neutral feelings, or negative feelings. Through these feelings the person will intern label the act as one or more of the following; strange, interesting, possibly enjoyable, frightening, annoying, wrong, right, or indifferent. The behavior can be so far removed from the course of what the subject perceives as a normal behavior they can actually determine that the act is staunchly wrong. It is at this point that all progress stops.
The next step is the understanding step. This is not to be confused with accepting the behavior or feeling positively towards it. This phase is where the subject seeks answers to the new behavior. Remember in the last step where some people tend to get stuck? If a person is stuck in the previous step they will not achieve this step in full. They will move on to a pseudo level of understanding. This is where the subject will form opinions and ideas from their own past experiences and what they perceive to be right and wrong. At this point they are irrevocably lost in their progress up the GLC model. People who remain stuck here suffer from a very low CQ, in which they are unable to accept or even tolerate ideas different from their own. A subject in this state most likely suffers from a low self esteem or self worth and expresses this through the classical bully complex.
For the subjects that are truly progressing they can be expected to employ several different methods of research. First and foremost they will compare the act to acts that they are already familiar with. This provides prospective and creates an image on how the new behavior relates to a behavior that may engage in on a normal basis. They will then continue their research by asking questions, observation, or any other means available. There is a lot of bad information available on a many different subjects zoosexuality not being the least of them all. There have been a many biased and askew studies preformed and as many false statements made. It takes a truly open mind and sharp eye to weed through the chaff in search of true un-biased knowledge.
Appreciation and acceptance are the next two steps and according to Chin & Gaynier go hand in hand. It is in these two steps that the subject begins to let go of the idea that their way is the only way. They understand that others may not live like them but are still good people with their own beliefs and desires. The steps are very closely related but still separate. During the appreciation step the subject not only understands the new act but, appreciates the act for the unique purpose of the act. Acceptance shows the subject that weather or not the act is something that they will participate in it is a normal act that brings someone else pleasure.
Internalization stage is achieved when the person clearly understands and has the ability to fully comprehend and interact with an individual who is involved with the act. This does not mean that the subject participates in the act in any way, although they may. The subject understands the dynamics of the act and can converse on the subject of the act without judgment or discrimination.
This is the process that a person will likely work through when confronted with the idea of zoosexuality. There are many holes in this process where a person can get stuck or develop very negative feelings. Especially when working through the awareness and understanding phase. It is possible to take a truly open minded person and alienate them during the understanding phase. It all depends on what school of thought they subscribe to. With the proliferation of the internet the proliferation of misinformation has only increased. There are many great resources for meeting people and discussing zoosexuality. Beast Forum is a great community that only tolerates respect and open-mindedness. You need not be a zoosexual to become a part of the community but, you are expected to be respectful towards everybody. Facebook is another place to find good information on zoosexuality. There are several pages dedicated to providing equal rights to zoosexuals. Sadly most rescue and abuse societies are against zoosexuality citing many myths and incorrect information.
If you are thinking of coming out of the closet to someone regarding your sexuality you should have a strong feel for their CQ and their ability to work through the GLC model. The consequences of their mental failures could end up costing you a friend at best. At worst you could expect to be run out of town, jail time, and even forced to register as a sex offender. Considering it is against the law in most places I challenge you to put your lawmakers to the CQ test and determine how low they fall on the GLC model.
The truth is there is no cookie cutter way to introduce someone to a new culture or act. It takes a special person to internalize something that they themselves may never participate in. There are a few things that you can do to portray a positive zoosexual image. Be clean, honest, approachable, respectful, and smart. It’s key to be someone that is hard to hate. If you are an all around good person who is appealing and respectful of others feelings and beliefs they will have little recourse but to say ‘your alright, not my bag but alright’. And be smart. Understand both sides of the debate and know the opposing view just as well as your own. Be able to dispel myths using creditable non zoo related sources.
If all works out well you will still have your friend and best of all someone who understands you and accepts you as you. It’s not something to rush into, but to take your time in considering and delivering. I have lost two very serious relationships because of this. The first time I came out to my then girl friend I was very poorly educated on the subject of zoosexuality and the concept of CQ, let alone EQ. Basically, it went south quickly, and the relationship ended. The second time I was better educated and took the time to consider the full situation. I ultimately ended the relationship on good terms and left my sexuality out of the picture. I came to the conclusion that it would end the relationship any ways and irrevocably ruin any possibility of a friendship developing after the relationship. She still does not know and we are still good friends.
Take your time, consider your options, and be very picky when you decide who you are going to tell that you are a zoosexual. There is a lot of support available, but there isn’t a lot that can be done when the wrong person finds out and comes after you and your lover.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Darwin, Rape, and Consent
Let’s face it. Too many people will never accept that animals have a brain and can think. This is wholly evident and expressible by the opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution. Even though the statement is old and worn ‘people are stupid, a person is smart’ it still holds true. I hope that the ‘you’ that is reading this right now is a person with their own brain and thought process. We are going to explore a psychological trait that is deeply rooted in Religious 'rigormaroar'.
Darwin, the name who brought us evolution, but would you also consider Christian in that association? It’s true that Darwin was a Christian, a very devout one at that. He was very happily married and had children all of whom subscribed and lived in a Christian household. Darwin was also a scientist, of which he is most well known. He was quite possibly too good of a scientist for his and his wife’s tastes. You see he actually discovered and wrote his ideas of evolution years before it was ever made public. They sat on his desk and in his head for years. Why? The church and his faith are why.
He, as was his wife, were taught and subscribed to the theory that we were all made 'in his image', *poof* there we are, like magic - if it is allowed to be called that. He discovered that this had, in fact, not occurred quite as they were taught to believe. We as all animals were once another species and though a long and slow process of genetic mutations and natural selection were shaped into the creatures we see and know today. Of course this was blastmaphy and could only be the work of the devil.
Because of this deep rooted religious conditioning Darwin's theory met with very harsh criticism. Why? Because the church conditioned people to believe that we, as humans, are separated from the animal world by way of divine design. Darwin basically proved that we are all animals.
That was a long time ago and it still causes a stir in allot of people across the world. It is not uncommon for schools in the US to not teach the theory because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. One state still requires any text book containing the theory of evolution to have a sticker on it stating that information contained within the book are presented as academic and are unproven theories.
The idea of separating ourselves from the animal world continues today. It is a topic we will visit regularly. And we are only looking at one aspect of the psychological separation. We as a populace see less value, if any, in the life of an animal. Yet we go to great lengths to spurn those who do the same to human life.
Why? Because, animals are regarded a lesser creature and lesser life than humans. Or so we are conditioned to believe. Now I am not debating abortion or the theory of evolution. I am laying out the basis for our original statement, “Too many people will never accept that animals have a brain and can think". Through all of this animals still fill numerous roles within our lives. Depending on who you are they can be a friend, family member, pet, surrogate child, pest, or any number of things. Yet few people would consider an animal as a potential lover.
Again we can immediately hear the Religious 'rigormaroar' coming our way. Sidestepping the freight train we narrow the argument to one basic thought, consent. Why do we innately believe that animals cannot give consent? Because we have been taught for years to believe that. We are conditioned to believe that animals are dumb beasts subservient to our wishes. This is because, as we have stated before, God created man in his image.
Who has ever been stung by a bee or bitten by a dog? Who has ever told a dog so sit and he did when no treat was involved? How many of us head to the toilet when we need to go? How many times does your dog 'come' when he would rather chase a squirrel? How many children do the same?
These are all cognitive choices made by individuals.
Let us consider what rape really is. It is an action of control. The person committing the act seeks satisfaction by achieving two key goals. The first is removing control from the victim. By doing this they are showing the victim that they are no longer in control of their life and must submit to the actions of the attacker. The second is control. By forcing themselves onto the victim they are showing dominance over the victim. The act can be violent with hitting, physical restraint and control. Or non-violent with the use of drugs or cohesion. The act is not driven be the need or desire to have sex but, by the need to be in control. This is done by making the victim defenseless and showing that they are no longer in control.
Keeping this in mind. Let us examine the commonly accepted method of dog breeding. When a female dog, a bitch, is in heat she is placed in a kennel where male dogs can see her. The dogs are not reacting to the sight of her; they are reacting to the smell of her. A dog in heat gives of a sent filled with pheromones that make the male dogs want to mate her. Now in a normal setting the dogs would sniff, run, court, and before the mating took place the female would either; A) move her tail and allow the courter to mount her or B) Bark, run off and attack the male if they were persistent in their courting. The female is able to choose her mate.
The breeder does things a little differently. Known as 'orchestrating' a breeding the breeder essitintaly forces the two dogs to mate. Some techniques are as extensive as binding the female to a bench so she cannot move. To holding the pair together to ensure a knotting. Either way, the dogs have little say. If the dogs decide that they want nothing to do with the whole deal they can say 'No'. Ever been bitten? However, the breeder will quickly remedy the situation with a muzzle and continue. If one of the dogs decides that they still don’t' want to the breeder can 'Tickle' or masturbate the dog. Dogs like humans physically respond to sexual stimulation. The dog still bound and muzzled is forced to erection and onto the unwilling bitch. Overall when the breeder says that its time, its time.
I challenge any person to find a zoosexual who goes to such lengths. Zoosexuals by definition are people who are sexually attracted to one or more species of (non-human) animals. Remember the definition of rape? It included no utterance of sexual attraction. Power and control is the key when speaking of rape. None of which are relevant to the definition of a zoosexual. Even when comparing a bestialist and a zoophile there is no correlation with rape. Both are subdivisions of zoosexuals and both enjoy having sex with animals. The only difference is zoophiles do it as a connection and expression of love, while a bestialist does it for the sex. Either way you look there are no factors related to rape involved in either process.
The problem is not the idea of someone having sex with the dog or other animal and the animal welcoming and enjoying the activity. The problem is we are conditioned as a society to look down on the mortal being and intelligence of animals as lesser creatures. We are ultimately afraid that we are nothing more than animals ourselves and have become convinced in our minds that this act brings us closer to being like animals and less like being god.
I think the idea that an animal can say 'No' is obviously true. Animals can consent.
Darwin, the name who brought us evolution, but would you also consider Christian in that association? It’s true that Darwin was a Christian, a very devout one at that. He was very happily married and had children all of whom subscribed and lived in a Christian household. Darwin was also a scientist, of which he is most well known. He was quite possibly too good of a scientist for his and his wife’s tastes. You see he actually discovered and wrote his ideas of evolution years before it was ever made public. They sat on his desk and in his head for years. Why? The church and his faith are why.
He, as was his wife, were taught and subscribed to the theory that we were all made 'in his image', *poof* there we are, like magic - if it is allowed to be called that. He discovered that this had, in fact, not occurred quite as they were taught to believe. We as all animals were once another species and though a long and slow process of genetic mutations and natural selection were shaped into the creatures we see and know today. Of course this was blastmaphy and could only be the work of the devil.
Because of this deep rooted religious conditioning Darwin's theory met with very harsh criticism. Why? Because the church conditioned people to believe that we, as humans, are separated from the animal world by way of divine design. Darwin basically proved that we are all animals.
That was a long time ago and it still causes a stir in allot of people across the world. It is not uncommon for schools in the US to not teach the theory because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. One state still requires any text book containing the theory of evolution to have a sticker on it stating that information contained within the book are presented as academic and are unproven theories.
The idea of separating ourselves from the animal world continues today. It is a topic we will visit regularly. And we are only looking at one aspect of the psychological separation. We as a populace see less value, if any, in the life of an animal. Yet we go to great lengths to spurn those who do the same to human life.
Why? Because, animals are regarded a lesser creature and lesser life than humans. Or so we are conditioned to believe. Now I am not debating abortion or the theory of evolution. I am laying out the basis for our original statement, “Too many people will never accept that animals have a brain and can think". Through all of this animals still fill numerous roles within our lives. Depending on who you are they can be a friend, family member, pet, surrogate child, pest, or any number of things. Yet few people would consider an animal as a potential lover.
Again we can immediately hear the Religious 'rigormaroar' coming our way. Sidestepping the freight train we narrow the argument to one basic thought, consent. Why do we innately believe that animals cannot give consent? Because we have been taught for years to believe that. We are conditioned to believe that animals are dumb beasts subservient to our wishes. This is because, as we have stated before, God created man in his image.
Who has ever been stung by a bee or bitten by a dog? Who has ever told a dog so sit and he did when no treat was involved? How many of us head to the toilet when we need to go? How many times does your dog 'come' when he would rather chase a squirrel? How many children do the same?
These are all cognitive choices made by individuals.
Let us consider what rape really is. It is an action of control. The person committing the act seeks satisfaction by achieving two key goals. The first is removing control from the victim. By doing this they are showing the victim that they are no longer in control of their life and must submit to the actions of the attacker. The second is control. By forcing themselves onto the victim they are showing dominance over the victim. The act can be violent with hitting, physical restraint and control. Or non-violent with the use of drugs or cohesion. The act is not driven be the need or desire to have sex but, by the need to be in control. This is done by making the victim defenseless and showing that they are no longer in control.
Keeping this in mind. Let us examine the commonly accepted method of dog breeding. When a female dog, a bitch, is in heat she is placed in a kennel where male dogs can see her. The dogs are not reacting to the sight of her; they are reacting to the smell of her. A dog in heat gives of a sent filled with pheromones that make the male dogs want to mate her. Now in a normal setting the dogs would sniff, run, court, and before the mating took place the female would either; A) move her tail and allow the courter to mount her or B) Bark, run off and attack the male if they were persistent in their courting. The female is able to choose her mate.
The breeder does things a little differently. Known as 'orchestrating' a breeding the breeder essitintaly forces the two dogs to mate. Some techniques are as extensive as binding the female to a bench so she cannot move. To holding the pair together to ensure a knotting. Either way, the dogs have little say. If the dogs decide that they want nothing to do with the whole deal they can say 'No'. Ever been bitten? However, the breeder will quickly remedy the situation with a muzzle and continue. If one of the dogs decides that they still don’t' want to the breeder can 'Tickle' or masturbate the dog. Dogs like humans physically respond to sexual stimulation. The dog still bound and muzzled is forced to erection and onto the unwilling bitch. Overall when the breeder says that its time, its time.
I challenge any person to find a zoosexual who goes to such lengths. Zoosexuals by definition are people who are sexually attracted to one or more species of (non-human) animals. Remember the definition of rape? It included no utterance of sexual attraction. Power and control is the key when speaking of rape. None of which are relevant to the definition of a zoosexual. Even when comparing a bestialist and a zoophile there is no correlation with rape. Both are subdivisions of zoosexuals and both enjoy having sex with animals. The only difference is zoophiles do it as a connection and expression of love, while a bestialist does it for the sex. Either way you look there are no factors related to rape involved in either process.
The problem is not the idea of someone having sex with the dog or other animal and the animal welcoming and enjoying the activity. The problem is we are conditioned as a society to look down on the mortal being and intelligence of animals as lesser creatures. We are ultimately afraid that we are nothing more than animals ourselves and have become convinced in our minds that this act brings us closer to being like animals and less like being god.
I think the idea that an animal can say 'No' is obviously true. Animals can consent.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Zoosexuality - Beastlists, Zoophiles, and Zoosexuals
We tend to use the terms bestiality and zoophilia interchangeably when they have meant and currently mean different things. Even researchers use them interchangeably. Byrd in his work 'the joy of beasts', 2000, states 'bestiality/zoophilia' throughout his book.
It wasn’t until Beetz in 2002 with his doctoral dissertation, 'love, violence and sexuality in relationships between humans and animals' That the idea of the two terms meaning different things started to gain some traction. (It should be noted that this is the study that has sponsored much of the hate towards us as the sample population was currently serving violent offenders! Just a tad skew and hardly a reliable pool.)
Zoophilia, love of animals, was the scientific term for anyone who had a loving relationship with animals (Rosenbauer, 1997 - 'sexuller' German). Obviously as the Internet gained popularity and allowed the average person to meet up and discuss individual feelings we see a rise in individuals identifying themselves as having like-minded interests (Andriette 1996 - 'laying with the beasts').
It was Munro-Thursfield who recognized two distinct groups amongst 'heavy petters'. Their work 'battered pets' was the first work to consider a loving relationship versus a perverse or sexually driven one. The authors were a team of vets in the UK who studied suspected cases of sexual abuse. (The ultimate conclusion of the research was to stimulate open discussion of what constuted abuse).
Now the stage is set for these thoughts to come together and advance perception. Enter, Dr. Hani Miletski.
His article, 'Is Zoophilia a sexual orientation? A study'. It is within this article that Dr. Miletski proposes, proves, and defines his thesis question (above).
There are three components that must be present to define an orientation. There must be the presence of 1, love and affection, 2, sexual fantasies, and 3 sexual attraction. This is the definition of a sexual orientation. NOTE: Actively engaging in sex is not a requirement for two reasons. Someone can have an orientation and not be having sex (like saying you’re not gay because you have never slept with a guy/girl). Also someone can have sex and not be oriented that way (it’s not true to say that because you had sex with a guy/girl you are gay).
Dr. Miletski catorgised his participants into two groups. Zoophiles (zoosexuals) who hold the orientation. And bestialists whom only have a 'fetish' with bestality - just eroticism. He reported that about 11% of his surveyed population was categorized as bestialist, about 80% zoosexual, and 8% were no longer having relations of a sexual nature with animals (they were 'reforming' through a religion).
I know that allot of people take offence to labels as they do not want to become part of a pre-defined lifestyle or any other variety of reasons - that are all valid. I am not directly calling or labeling anyone or saying you have to conform and/or choose a label or identifaction. We are all individuals. I am merely presenting the scholarly material as I have found and understand it.
It wasn’t until Beetz in 2002 with his doctoral dissertation, 'love, violence and sexuality in relationships between humans and animals' That the idea of the two terms meaning different things started to gain some traction. (It should be noted that this is the study that has sponsored much of the hate towards us as the sample population was currently serving violent offenders! Just a tad skew and hardly a reliable pool.)
Zoophilia, love of animals, was the scientific term for anyone who had a loving relationship with animals (Rosenbauer, 1997 - 'sexuller' German). Obviously as the Internet gained popularity and allowed the average person to meet up and discuss individual feelings we see a rise in individuals identifying themselves as having like-minded interests (Andriette 1996 - 'laying with the beasts').
It was Munro-Thursfield who recognized two distinct groups amongst 'heavy petters'. Their work 'battered pets' was the first work to consider a loving relationship versus a perverse or sexually driven one. The authors were a team of vets in the UK who studied suspected cases of sexual abuse. (The ultimate conclusion of the research was to stimulate open discussion of what constuted abuse).
Now the stage is set for these thoughts to come together and advance perception. Enter, Dr. Hani Miletski.
His article, 'Is Zoophilia a sexual orientation? A study'. It is within this article that Dr. Miletski proposes, proves, and defines his thesis question (above).
There are three components that must be present to define an orientation. There must be the presence of 1, love and affection, 2, sexual fantasies, and 3 sexual attraction. This is the definition of a sexual orientation. NOTE: Actively engaging in sex is not a requirement for two reasons. Someone can have an orientation and not be having sex (like saying you’re not gay because you have never slept with a guy/girl). Also someone can have sex and not be oriented that way (it’s not true to say that because you had sex with a guy/girl you are gay).
Dr. Miletski catorgised his participants into two groups. Zoophiles (zoosexuals) who hold the orientation. And bestialists whom only have a 'fetish' with bestality - just eroticism. He reported that about 11% of his surveyed population was categorized as bestialist, about 80% zoosexual, and 8% were no longer having relations of a sexual nature with animals (they were 'reforming' through a religion).
I know that allot of people take offence to labels as they do not want to become part of a pre-defined lifestyle or any other variety of reasons - that are all valid. I am not directly calling or labeling anyone or saying you have to conform and/or choose a label or identifaction. We are all individuals. I am merely presenting the scholarly material as I have found and understand it.
Study, Hmmm
For a long time I have seen allot of studies come across many journals and the Internet. These 'scholarly' studies that have touted a fair and unbiased look into the world of zoophilia. Many of these have included prison inmates, child molesters, SPCA members, and the gamut of everyone except for A) a true unknown sample and B) a sampling of those who call themselves 'zoos'.
This is unfair to EVERYONE. As it sets a standard that it is OK to skew your study to produce the results that you want to see in support of your personal platform. I think we have all had enough of this.
The time has come for me to complete my studies in psychology and the idea of the taboo have been close to my heart and mind throughout my schooling. So I am conducting a study on zoophilia and sexuality. I believe that people that are attracted to animals sexually are actually zoosexuals very similarly to those that are homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Once I have a large enough sample size I can further discuss and evaluate this theory.
Now the study is open to anyone who wants to participate. To participate simply email me saying that you wish to participate (email to follow). The survey is 100% confidently sent, received, and processed. You may send it to a Friend so long as the completed survey makes its way back to me.
Please send all requests and questions to DogbertZoo@gmail.com.
This is unfair to EVERYONE. As it sets a standard that it is OK to skew your study to produce the results that you want to see in support of your personal platform. I think we have all had enough of this.
The time has come for me to complete my studies in psychology and the idea of the taboo have been close to my heart and mind throughout my schooling. So I am conducting a study on zoophilia and sexuality. I believe that people that are attracted to animals sexually are actually zoosexuals very similarly to those that are homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Once I have a large enough sample size I can further discuss and evaluate this theory.
Now the study is open to anyone who wants to participate. To participate simply email me saying that you wish to participate (email to follow). The survey is 100% confidently sent, received, and processed. You may send it to a Friend so long as the completed survey makes its way back to me.
Please send all requests and questions to DogbertZoo@gmail.com.
Greetings! read me FIRST
Greetings, I now have an outlet for all of my rants, raves adn requests. Wait, I have just joined a billion other digital bound wifi shackled netbook toting yuppies sitting at Starbucks. You really should keep that in mind as you read on in my blogs. I'm not that different from you, your freinds, or your family.
Hell, you never know I might be one of them!
Besides that feel free to contact me and share your opinion/position but, keep it respectfull. I am not judging you. And BTW, please 'bare' -hehe- with my spelling. It is horrible and I don't always use the spell check as I get a little impaitent and lazy. With that said welcome to my world.
Hell, you never know I might be one of them!
Besides that feel free to contact me and share your opinion/position but, keep it respectfull. I am not judging you. And BTW, please 'bare' -hehe- with my spelling. It is horrible and I don't always use the spell check as I get a little impaitent and lazy. With that said welcome to my world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
