A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Maybe the Authentic text can shed some light on an important problem that has cropped up in the Corrupted Version: the right of way system.

The example was that of the situation where there are 2 people in a relationship. One likes to sleep in the same bed together. The other one does not.

According to the Corrupted text, the one who does not want to sleep together should get their way, because the fulfillment of this desire only takes 1 person to achieve, while the other one requires 2.

I never got this. It seems to me that it can be seen as a simple situation of 2 people with desires that happen to not be compatible: they cannot both happen at the same time.

Does the Authentic Version enlighten us regarding the proper way to decide who gets to have their way and who does not? And also if it is acceptable to ask someone what time it is, rather than just getting up and walking to the kitchen to check the time?

[Florence Jellem]

Coming soon:

Party Like It’s MCMXCIX

The Authentic Page MM Party

MMI: A Space-Case Oddity

A special note to all you I, G, and E Homos out there: Please remember which party you are allowed to attend!

That is all for now, boys.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Since we now know that peacegirl intended Adolf’s death within the legal definition of the term, it follows that she intended all these violent deaths since 1980.

Therefore: peacegirl stands exposed as the greatest mass murderess in the history of the world!

That analysis was mathematical, scientific and undeniable, which is to say undeniable, undeniable and undeniable. Moreover, the analysis was presented in a manner that brooks no opposition.

You know what increase several billion-fold after 1980? Compulsory vaccines is what! As peacegirl's trusted sources repeatedly tell us, the Jews weaponized vaccines for use in a war of extermination against the white race. And since correlation = causation absent definitive proof to the contrary, it is conclusively established that vaccines cause autism.

In the Golden Age, the Jews' conscience never would have permitted those dastardly deeds. Thus, one can only conclude that peacegirl intentionally caused the shocking amount of environmental autism that has occurred from 1980 to date. She may also be legally culpable for some of the inherited and/or glandular autism occurring from that time forward, but that needs to be confirmed by twelve leading scientists (not political scientists).

[thedoc]

Something that occurs to me, in the "Golden Age" would parents be inhibited from having children? I have heard many say that bringing children into this world is very hurtful, so not having children would be the path of greater satisfaction and no blame. Just curious what Lessans and the authentic text says about this, I know that I can't count on Peacegirl to give an honest answer.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The example was that of the situation where there are 2 people in a relationship. One likes to sleep in the same bed together. The other one does not.

According to the Corrupted text, the one who does not want to sleep together should get their way, because the fulfillment of this desire only takes 1 person to achieve, while the other one requires 2.

I never got this. It seems to me that it can be seen as a simple situation of 2 people with desires that happen to not be compatible: they cannot both happen at the same time.

Does the Authentic Version enlighten us regarding the proper way to decide who gets to have their way and who does not?

God does not permit choice in the matter of the sleeping arrangements, Vivisectus. Sleeping together decreases passion - but this is not the reason that God does not give us a choice in having at least two beds available.

In the Authentic Text, the man gets his way. Alice, you see, is striking the first blow and being selfish by asking her husband to sacrifice his desire to sleep alone Of course, that same husband has moments earlier stated that he "likes to snuggle," but that bitch Alice brought it up, so she's out of luck.

And also if it is acceptable to ask someone what time it is, rather than just getting up and walking to the kitchen to check the time?

Don't be silly, Vivisectus. Questions are a form of blame (you will notice all of peacegirl's blameful questions directed at me.) This also implicates the critical mathematical issue of husbands and wives not sharing a bed after fucking and sucking (let us not forget that "sexual satisfaction is the true meaning of love"). So go look at the clock in the kitchen or dial the phone for yourself and don't ask where your wife is going because why should you even care, Vivisectus.

[Florence Jellem]

This stuff is all very interesting to Flo, who after all had three husbands and had to kick them all to the curb. Maybe if the younger Flo had had access to the Authentic Text mediated by the wise hermeneutics of its True Steward, ChuckF, then Flo would have been a success in the marriage department.

Incidentally, I really like how Lar … Big Buck punched that guy’s lights out. If you’re such a tightwad that you can’t lend a pal ten bucks to tide him over until payday or whatever then you deserve to take a trip to Instant Palookaville.

I’m still confused on several points with respect to Advance Blame and Right of Way, however. I gather that nice Vivisectus is similarly confused. (I seem to recall something about how, when the Sectus clan attempted to put these principles into action, Mrs. Sectus was compelled at one point to bend over and pretend to search for change on the floor while backing up…)

When Flo was much younger and working on her first husband, she had the habit of stripping off her garb, falling back on the bed, hiking up and spreading her legs, and saying, “Arthur, dear, would you please eat me out now?”

And Arthur would dive right in, because was a devoted muff diver.

Still, I later had to kick Arthur to the curb, and reading over the last installment of the Authentic Text, Flo can’t up but conclude that I was “advance blaming” Arthur for asking him to eat me out. Should I have avoided asking the question at all, regardless of the fact that he wanted to eat me out? Would it have been enough for me to remain silent while holding up my legs and perhaps extravagantly winking at Arthur in a come-hither way? Is this what the sexy jackets and translucent robes business is all about? But even so, isn’t a question posed silently but with obvious mannerisms and gestures itself still a question, and thus a form of advance blaming? Please help Flo out with this.

[Angakuk]

So, when Lessans asked Charlie if he and Alice were going to have one bed or two, wasn't he blaming Charlie in advance by asking him that question? It seems to me that Lessans asks his imaginary friends a lot of questions. That seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[Vivisectus]

This is a different story altogether! So even suggesting you just set up a single bedroom with a double bed is striking a first blow already - it sort of implies that when you decide to roll off your spouse wordlessly after the perfunctory exchange of bodily fluids that is the true meaning of love and wander out of the room, she has some sort of right to harass you with bothersome expectations, while even implying there might be one is a first blow to marriage.

After all, even responding to any such request would involve you giving up the desire to not speak to the clingy bitch in order to satisfy her desire, and that is selfish: she does not even consider my desire to forget she exists and go and play some xbox or whatever, which makes no demands on her whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, when Lessans asked Charlie if he and Alice were going to have one bed or two, wasn't he blaming Charlie in advance by asking him that question? It seems to me that Lessans asks his imaginary friends a lot of questions. That seems pretty hypocritical to me.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions Angakuk. Boy are you confused.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, when Lessans asked Charlie if he and Alice were going to have one bed or two, wasn't he blaming Charlie in advance by asking him that question? It seems to me that Lessans asks his imaginary friends a lot of questions. That seems pretty hypocritical to me.

I think you know the answer to that, Angakuk - and your question is therefore advance blame.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is a different story altogether! So even suggesting you just set up a single bedroom with a double bed is striking a first blow already - it sort of implies that when you decide to roll off your spouse wordlessly after the perfunctory exchange of bodily fluids that is the true meaning of love and wander out of the room, she has some sort of right to harass you with bothersome expectations, while even implying there might be one is a first blow to marriage.

After all, even responding to any such request would involve you giving up the desire to not speak to the clingy bitch in order to satisfy her desire, and that is selfish: she does not even consider my desire to go and play some xbox or something.

This is correct, so long as by "spouse" you mean the person you just banged. Marriage is sex without a single ounce of obligation. Remember, a woman saying "no" to sex when the dude is all horned up is not an option, because any word or action that decreases the desire to have a passionate relation only reveals a lack of love by tacitly blaming the sexual desire of the other. So, open up.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with asking questions Angakuk. Boy are you confused.

Hi, peacegirl! Welcome back to the forum! It is so nice to see you again!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is a different story altogether! So even suggesting you just set up a single bedroom with a double bed is striking a first blow already - it sort of implies that when you decide to roll off your spouse wordlessly after the perfunctory exchange of bodily fluids that is the true meaning of love and wander out of the room, she has some sort of right to harass you with bothersome expectations, while even implying there might be one is a first blow to marriage.

After all, even responding to any such request would involve you giving up the desire to not speak to the clingy bitch in order to satisfy her desire, and that is selfish: she does not even consider my desire to forget she exists and go and play some xbox or whatever, which makes no demands on her whatsoever.

The true meaning of love is respect. Lessans stated that there are always two desires to consider. This does not mean either spouse will always desire to sleep alone but it does mean that if he or she does desire this (for whatever reason), their desire will be respected. This makes clear who has the right of way when there is a conflict of desire. To repeat: it does not mean people will never want to stay together and cuddle after the sex act, or refuse to think of the other person first. If you had read the book you would realize that not imposing on the other actually increases the desire to please the other partner. Now you can all twist the meaning of this any way you want for your entertainment but this right of way system will prevent many arguments that have caused resentment and even divorce.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Hi, peacegirl! Welcome back to the forum! It is so nice to see you again!

Do you sit and wait for me? It seems like wherever I am, there you are.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The true meaning of love is respect. Lessans stated that there are always two desires to consider. This does not mean either spouse will always desire to sleep alone but it does mean that if he or she does desire this (for whatever reason), their desire will be respected. This makes clear who has the right of way when there is a conflict of desire. To repeat: it does not mean people will never want to stay together and cuddle after the sex act, or refuse to think of the other person first. If you had read the book you would realize that not imposing on the other actually increases the desire to please the other partner. Now you can all twist the meaning of this any way you want for your entertainment but this right of way system will prevent many arguments that have caused resentment and even divorce.

I really don't see anything like that in the Authentic version. What I can see is that even failing to provide the other person a bed to run off to when they figure they have had enough of you and your clingy demands for attention, the fulfillment of which makes absolutely no demands on you, while your selfish desire to even be spoken to conflicts with the other person's desire to ignore you, is a first blow to marriage.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you sit and wait for me? It seems like wherever I am, there you are.

Why, peacegirl, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text I am compelled of my own free will to be vigilant against Corruptions because this is the direction of my greater satisfaction. You are evidently compelled of your own free will to lie constantly and amusingly about how you are leaving forever (for real this time!!!) to go to Facebook and how you are placing me on pretend ignore. You have that right of way, of course, but we consider the source when you lie

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I really don't see anything like that in the Authentic version. What I can see is that even failing to provide the other person a bed to run off to when they figure they have had enough of you and your clingy demands for attention, the fulfillment of which makes absolutely no demands on you, while your selfish desire to even be spoken to conflicts with the other person's desire to ignore you, is a first blow to marriage.

The extra bed allows both individuals to have their privacy if they want it. Having an unspoken rule that two people are bound to each other in a literal sense, without any escape hatch, is not healthy for a relationship. Furthermore, being glued to someone as a result of the belief that now that you are married, you have to sleep in the same bed, can be so restrictive for some people that they won't sacrifice their freedom being single in favor of this restriction. This is just one example of many that can have a deleterious effect on marriage.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Why, peacegirl, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text I am compelled of my own free will to be vigilant against Corruptions because this is the direction of my greater satisfaction. You are evidently compelled of your own free will to lie constantly and amusingly about how you are leaving forever (for real this time!!!) to go to Facebook and how you are placing me on pretend ignore. You have that right of way, of course, but we consider the source when you lie

I'm a liar Chuck. I am just living up to my label.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm a liar Chuck.

We know, peacegirl. We know

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

We know, peacegirl. We know

[ChuckF]

We know it by your lies here, of course, but also all of your Corruptions - your lies that pack the Corrupted Text that you hawk online for lucre.

In more exciting news, we are edging ever closer to the page 2000 party!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

We know it by your lies here, of course, but also all of your Corruptions - your lies that pack the Corrupted Text that you hawk online for lucre.

In more exciting news, we are edging ever closer to the page 2000 party!

You're losing ground Chuck. You're losing your touch. What's happening to you as the chief of ff forums?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The extra bed allows both individuals to have their privacy if they want it. Having an unspoken rule that two people are bound to each other in a literal sense, without any escape hatch, is not healthy for a relationship. Furthermore, being glued to someone as a result of the belief that now that you are married, you have to sleep in the same bed, can be so restrictive for some people that they won't sacrifice their freedom being single in favor of this restriction. This is just one example of many that can have a deleterious effect on marriage.

Sounds like you are happily making stuff up to suit your own prejudices here - the Authentic text says something entirely different.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's happening to you as the chief of ff forums?

peacegirl, I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text #TrueStewardship. I don't know what you're talking about with this "chief of ff forums" nonsense that you just made up. As for all of this "the true meaning of love is respect" and "having an unspoken rule" is nonsense - this is obviously pure Corruption as it is entirely absent from the Authentic Text. Maybe you think this will help sell some $41.00 Corrupted Texts?

[Vivisectus]

See how the rot creeps in! Peacegirl doesn't like something in the Authentic text and immediately sets out to bowdlerize it into oblivion with a flurry of very loose interpretations until it means something she likes better... and then passes off that interpretation as the opinion of a genius, a benefactor of all mankind, an Astute Observer who spent 8 hours day reading and thinking for 20 years and who had several ph-ph-phDs.

Such hubris

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

See how the rot creeps in! Peacegirl doesn't like something in the Authentic text and immediately sets out to bowdlerize it into oblivion with a flurry of very loose interpretations until it means something she likes better... and then passes off that interpretation as the opinion of a genius, a benefactor of all mankind, an Astute Observer who spent 8 hours day reading and thinking for 20 years and who had several ph-ph-phDs.

Such hubris

More fabrication thanks to Vivisectus! You can't win Vivisectus because I was his daughter and none of my compilation reflects EXACTLY what he meant to convey. Your arguing over corrupt versus authentic is a lost cause.