Of Boylove and Boylovers

Re: PM # 190

Thanks for the detailed explanations and points.....

With reference to your second paragraph, but more specifically to your statement about allowing children to experiment and learn about their own sexulity, it is an idea, which will avail to nothing.

PM, please do not misunderstand what I am saying. In of itself, in an ideal situation situation, that idea has merits, but we do not live in an ideal situation and in our present reality, something like that, which you are suggesting, will never be allowed. You have made your points, in regard to my numberous posts, and have rested your case well.

Just allow me to say one thing and then I, too, will rest my case!

PM, our present political, and social enviroment will resist such an undertaking aggressivily. You are correct to infer that I am having difficulty in translating, what you are advocating, into a realitistic practical scenerio. The reason for that is, because the present day societal environment is not at all pre-disposed towards this idea and will rebel against it. As someone, who is involved in politics, I have to react to situations and hypotheticals within a frame work of realistic conditions and determine, what will work and what will not work realistically. With that in mind, I do see how this idea can be transformed from a theory to reality and be accepted.

Nothing in life is ever certain and these societial conditions may change over a period of time. PM, you have done an excellent work of defending the logic of your arguments, against your detractors, including me, but you seriously need to take this corpus of arguments, if you are serious about this topic, which I still think are in the theoretical state and mould them into a concrete program of intentions, which can be politically debated. In your last post, you started down that road by clearifying your intentions, but you need further tine tune those intentions and explictily demostrate your specific points.

Once you have a political plan of intentions, a platform, then the real debate can begin on whether to accredit this issue with a legally defined right or not. PM, you really need to get past the theory, which you have already debated well, and instead you need to start concentrating on the practical art of turning the theory into a reality.

When you get to that state, give me an e-buzz, and I will be happy to brain storm with you!

In any case, thanks for an interesting and thought provoking debate on a highly controversial topic.

Ciao!

Dear Ferozk

(re. #185)

You seem to have great difficulty accepting that I view this as a matter of children`s rights. That is understandable: an effective ploy by any minority seeking to bring about change for itself would be do demonstrate that change would benefit the majority.

And yet, I do not see myself intrinsically as a minority here. If I have been able to retain equanimity (for the most part) during this InterAction and exhibit the immense stamina others have referred to, it is because I do not view that as a Me-versus-Society battle at all. I see it more of a `battle` between erotophilia and erotophobia. My (unstated) position through-out has been that as members of modern-day society, we are indoctrinated OUT OF the sensitivity to eroticism in certain areas. Incredulous as this may sound, what I`m saying is that we are turned into pedophobes by an insidious process of systematic erotophobic education. As such, I hold that the pedophobe is a more real social-construction, sexual-identity than the pedophile. Put another way, I am saying `Pedophiles R Us`.

So, a point of my argumentation, whether you can accept it or not, IS about children`s rights to experience their sexuality, their rights even to be educated about their sexuality (by parents, teacher, caring adults, in a monitored environment in the best of worlds) just as they are educated about other things in life. I`m not merely talking of what is called `sex education` in Western schools, which inasmuch as it serves to de-eroticize sex, goes against the ideals of a true education. I am speaking, quite simply, of teaching children to understand themselves and the world in as personal a way as possible. I am speaking of NOT teaching our children things that make them feel innately bad about a natural part of themselves, so much so that they grow up feeling ``intense repulsion and abhorrence`` for certain practices for reasons they cannot really name (even as they accept that in other times, there existed no repulsion or abhorrence to these practices in society)

Naturally, a liberation of children`s sexuality will have positive ramifications for those already liberated enough to partake of the fruits of this openness. To suggest that this will necessarily be an exploitative scenario is to do little beyond betray one`s own erotophobia. Elaborate legal arguments can be forwarded to hide this basic fear, all the time overlooking the benefits to be accrued, simply because these benefits cannot be measured quantitatively. (`number of times fondled` can be counted, while emotional/intellectual benefit from the WHOLE experience will not register on any instrument.) Love is filtered out of the legal argumentation (for what exactly is its worth anyway?) and legal concepts of `asymmetry`, `disbalance` and `reciprocal rights` are invoked to pass absolute judgement on matters essentially of the heart. Legality is called in stamp out they desperate voices that shout ``Wait, there is much much more! This is not just black or white! Our realities (sum of experiences) may be different!``

I rest my case.

Dear Ferozk

(re. #185)

You seem to have great difficulty accepting that I view this as a matter of children`s rights. That is understandable: an effective ploy by any minority seeking to bring about change for itself would be do demonstrate that change would benefit the majority.

And yet, I do not see myself intrinsically as a minority here. If I have been able to retain equanimity (for the most part) during this InterAction and exhibit the immense stamina others have referred to, it is because I do not view that as a Me-versus-Society battle at all. I see it more of a `battle` between erotophilia and erotophobia. My (unstated) position through-out has been that as members of modern-day society, we are indoctrinated OUT OF the sensitivity to eroticism in certain areas. Incredulous as this may sound, what I`m saying is that we are turned into pedophobes by an insidious process of systematic erotophobic education. As such, I hold that the pedophobe is a more real social-construction, sexual-identity than the pedophile. Put another way, I am saying `Pedophiles R Us`.

So, a point of my argumentation, whether you can accept it or not, IS about children`s rights to experience their sexuality, their rights even to be educated about their sexuality (by parents, teacher, caring adults, in a monitored environment in the best of worlds) just as they are educated about other things in life. I`m not merely talking of what is called `sex education` in Western schools, which inasmuch as it serves to de-eroticize sex, goes against the ideals of a true education. I am speaking, quite simply, of teaching children to understand themselves and the world in as personal a way as possible. I am speaking of NOT teaching our children things that make them feel innately bad about a natural part of themselves, so much so that they grow up feeling ``intense repulsion and abhorrence`` for certain practices for reasons they cannot really name (even as they accept that in other times, there existed no repulsion or abhorrence to these practices in society)

Naturally, a liberation of children`s sexuality will have positive ramifications for those already liberated enough to partake of the fruits of this openness. To suggest that this will necessarily be an exploitative scenario is to do little beyond betray one`s own erotophobia. Elaborate legal arguments can be forwarded to hide this basic fear, all the time overlooking the benefits to be accrued, simply because these benefits cannot be measured quantitatively. (`number of times fondled` can be counted, while emotional/intellectual benefit from the WHOLE experience will not register on any instrument.) Love is filtered out of the legal argumentation (for what exactly is its worth anyway?) and legal concepts of `asymmetry`, `disbalance` and `reciprocal rights` are invoked to pass absolute judgement on matters essentially of the heart. Legality is called in stamp out they desperate voices that shout ``Wait, there is much much more! This is not just black or white! Our realities (sum of experiences) may be different!``

I rest my case.

Dear Karakoram,

(re.#188)

[Your fetish is ill defined and unexplainable even by you (it may be my ability to understand)]

My `fetish` is, to me, best described by the what folks usually call romantic love (although there are some differences, such as my not needing reciprocal attention in equal measure.). Can you - or anyone - explain love? Should we even try? Words can only ever give an approximation of experiences. (Zen teaching)

[The parents take decisions:

To attain a goal (e.g. my kid will learn to swim, will become a doctor, should get married, or even let the kids do what they want to) that they feel benefits, provides security or prepares the child for the world. ]

Does the setting of GOALS (self-interested as they often are), in itself, render `control` desirable?

[What is it that you are trying to impart to these boys ? Where do you fit in ? Your argument seemed to suggest that you have as much control over them as their parents.]

First, what arguments have I forwarded that suggest that I even take the opportunities presented me to influence boys. I mentioned ONE relationship with a boy, which was more of an awakening than an ideal situation. Please remember, we are still discussing this hypothethically.

What can I impart? Well, let`s consider the relationship with Nomi. I offered him companionship, security, an ear, a trustworthy (YES!) relationship with an adult, a feeling of being special, lots of advice on how to deal with the problems any 12-yo faces, and (if I may be allowed a little immodesty) a little knowledge of the world.

[The secretive nature of your relationship is a big issue.]

Let`s get one thing straight. There was no `big secret`, the sex-play not being a vital part of the bond. There are some things people keep secret about almost every relationship. This secrecy needn`t define the relationship. It certainly didn`t mine. The public perception, in highlighting the sex part of the relationship, naturally supposes that the whole relationship is secretive.

[The fact that your actions are hidden make them more dangerous...]

I would much rather you said ``makes them POTENTIALLY dangerous``.

[... for all we have are your slippery responses and your word. ...: why should society accept them ?]

Excuse me? Slippery?

Anyway, you, or society, have to accept them in this case simply by the principle of take-all-or-nothing. It applies here because that`s all you ever had to go by. You accept what I say about my feelings (which I was under no compulsion to divulge), so why do you have problems accepting my word motives, or actions?

[How do you explain the relationship to the boys ?]

Puhleez, now. Relationships happen. They are not contracts the dynamics of which are set out in advance, or need redefining during. Perhaps your question relates to the sexual side (assuming it exists). Unless I was forcing it down his throat, or manipulating him, there would be no need for explaining.

[Do they know its `wrong` to tell their parents and to keep quiet about it?]

Wouldn`t you? At twelve.

[Are they even aware of how much it means to you ?]

Assuming `it` refers to the entire relationship, since `sex` doesn`t really mean that much, well, I guess some do and some don`t... depends on their intellect/emotional IQ.

[Although I still don`t understand the special importance you attach to nurturing young boys, as opposed to the mundane `other` nurturing meant for everybody else.]

Well, I`ve tried to avoid saying this throughout, but I guess there`s no other way to put it than ``You have to be there. In it``

[All this is of course assuming that there is a purpose behind your actions and this is just not something you do to escape reality.]

Is there a `purpose` to your falling in love (other than in the biological sense)? And we each create our realities to a large extent. If you`re wondering if I am able to function as a `normal` contributing member of society, well, why should you believe me if I said I was every bit a model citizen (my `fetish` aside)? Incidentally, I`m hoping for a character witness to give her testimony. Not because I need you readers to trust me for my own well-being, but because `Patrick Masih` is a project, a mission. Let`s see…

Hope that settles some of your queries.

regards,

PM

Dear Ferozk

(re. #185)

You seem to have great difficulty accepting that I view this as a matter of children`s rights. That is understandable: an effective ploy by any minority seeking to bring about change for itself would be do demonstrate that change would benefit the majority.

And yet, I do not see myself intrinsically as a minority here. If I have been able to retain equanimity (for the most part) during this InterAction and exhibit the immense stamina others have referred to, it is because I do not view that as a Me-versus-Society battle at all. I see it more of a `battle` between erotophilia and erotophobia. My (unstated) position through-out has been that as members of modern-day society, we are indoctrinated OUT OF the sensitivity to eroticism in certain areas. Incredulous as this may sound, what I`m saying is that we are turned into pedophobes by an insidious process of systematic erotophobic education. As such, I hold that the pedophobe is a more real social-construction, sexual-identity than the pedophile. Put another way, I am saying `Pedophiles R Us`. (naturally, that is.)

So, a point of my argumentation, whether you can accept it or not, IS about children`s rights to experience their sexuality, their rights even to be educated about their sexuality (by parents, teacher, caring adults, in a monitored environment in the best of worlds) just as they are educated about other things in life. I`m not merely talking of what is called `sex education` in Western schools, which inasmuch as it serves to de-eroticize sex, goes against the ideals of a good education. I am speaking, quite simply, of teaching children to understand themselves and the world in as personal a way as possible. I am speaking of NOT teaching our children things that make them feel innately bad about a natural part of themselves, so much so that they grow up feeling ``intense repulsion and abhorrence`` for certain practices for reasons they cannot really name (even as they accept that in other times there existed no repulsion or abhorrence to these practices in society)

Naturally, a liberation of children`s sexuality will have positive ramifications for those already liberated enough to partake of the fruits of this openness. To suggest that this will necessarily be an exploitative scenario is to do little beyond betray one`s own erotophobia. Elaborate legal arguments can be forwarded to hide this basic fear, all the time overlooking the benefits to be accrued, simply because these benefits cannot be measured quantitatively. (`number of times fondled` can be counted, while emotional/intellectual benefit from the WHOLE experience will not register on any instrument.) Love is filtered out of the legal argumentaton (for what exactly is its worth anyway?) and concepts of `asymmetry`, `disbalance` and `intelligence` are used pass absolute judgement on matters essentially of the heart. Legailty is called in stamp out they desperate voices that shout ``Wait, there is much much more! This is not black or white!``

I rest my case.

Silent Readers, Thought Provoking Writers, Learned Participants, Participants - Providing Mental Stimulation, Participants - Repeating their versions with flowery language:

Well, we are still on 188th post. 12 more to go.

Current Situation:

Status: Mr. PM is apparently a stand alone entity. There are some liberals who appear to be on his side. Though these liberals do not approve of his actions but they think everyone is unique so they just add some ``Hulkee Phulkee`` arguments.

Now on the other hand, some hard hitters are giving MR. PM tough time. They are carefully scrutanizing each and every thought in Mr. PM`s brain and each and every feelings in ``His`` heart.

Well, as per the current status: It seems a lot of mind readers, intuitive folks and careful scrutanizers are coming forward to outwit Mr. PM but ``Majaal Hae Kae Mr. PM Kae Sur Pur Joon Tuk Reeng Jayae`` :-) As a result Newton`s 3rd law has been proved 180 times. (To Sir Isaac Newton: Salutes)!

What happened next ?

Please stay in tuned!

PM:

Your fetish is ill defined and unexplainable even by you (it may be my ability to understand). You compare what you do to children with the worst of what some parents have done. The parents take decisions:

To attain a goal (e.g. my kid will learn to swim, will become a doctor, should get married, or even let the kids do what they want to)that they feel benefits, provides security or prepares the child for the world.

Or- the parents are very religous and follow and force on their children all injunctions and interpretations they believe.

Or- the worst case: they abuse their children and care not for their welfare.

What is it that you are trying to impart to these boys ? Where do you fit in ? Your argument seemed to suggest that you have as much control over them as their parents. The secretive nature of your relationship is a big issue. The abuser parents hide their actions because they know society will react (maybe not everywhere- but most abusers are cowards and abuse behind closed doors). You may hide them because society does not accept them. The fact that your actions are hidden make them more dangerous, for all we have are your slippery responses and your word. And we know how much you value that (with the children`s parents). But to rephrase the question above: why should society accept them ? what is it that you are offering through these relationships ? and why are you so bent on defending the right to sex with these boys ?

Also curious about the following:

How do you explain the relationship to the boys ?

Do they know its `wrong` to tell their parents and to keep quiet about it?

Are they even aware of how much it means to you ?

The nurturing aspect of your relationship is not in question. Although I still don`t understand the special importance you attach to nurturing young boys, as opposed to the mundane `other` nurturing meant for everybody else.

All this is of course assuming that there is a purpose behind your actions and this is just not something you do to escape reality.

Let me help you make the 200 mark.

Peace.

Re: PM # 175

On the contary, PM, it seems that the recourse to this and seeking to legalize it, has more to do with your ``rights`` than would be a boy`s, who happened to be your object d`amour. As far individual rights go, even though I detest and abhor this practice and do not condone it, I have no right to impose my character perceptions upon you. However, I think that this character trait, or what ever, you prefer to call it, is wrong, but that is my opinion for what it is worth and I will stand by it.

I did not miss the intent of your argumentation, because, as you said it, it is about a right to choice, but where I disagree with you is on the justification of that right within the contextual parameters of your intentions.

PM, even in my most lucid, aggressive moments of advocating liberalism`s cause, I fail to rationalize how you could equate a balance of mutual rights, between an adult and a child, as being a reciprocal right. I just do not see such rights as being equal given the imbalances of inter-generational differences and the separte, but not equal, experiences and maturity levels of the participants in such a relationship. This intergenerational abyss of experiences, age, muturity, though it may seem in theory to be abridgeable, in reality it not so easy to over come.

Like I said before, this is just my opinion and I do not begrudge a person his individual choices, even though that person seems to be intent on tilting at windmills.

Dear Karakoram;

Re #184:

(Treating the questions hypothetically, since I`ve yet to commit an act legally wrong:)

[Is what you`re doing wrong ? You tell me.]

Without getting into epistemological definitions of right & wrong, I`d have to say (from my heart as much as my mind), NO, not necessarily. That`s my answer.

[Are you sure that you are being entirely honest with yourself and the children in these relationships?]

Yes!!!

[Are they mature enough or independent to make their own decisions ?]

You would still have to define `children` here. No one would be so silly as to assume that the decision making ability of a 16 year old is the same as that of a 4 year old-both children in the eyes of the law. But let`s apply the question to 12-year-olds.( my choice of age-of-consent, for reasons we cannot go into here)

Can/should they make decisions? About what? Whether they should drop out of school? No! Whether they should take drugs? No! Whether they choose a religion of their own choice, rather than be mentally abused into following one? Yes! Whether they should be subjected to the fears of learning swimming against their will? Yes! Whether they should be allowed to experience pleasures of their bodies? Yes!!! (Of course, the issue here goes deeper, since we must guard against abuse, but that`s not what the question is asking)

[You are violating their parent`s trust by engaging in activities which they may not deem beneficial for their children. That`s one wrong.]

Call it a lesser evil. Parents may be screwing up all the time. No one complains about the wrong there.

My question to you: Should simply `being` a parent even give one sole right over the life-decisions of the child? Actually, it doesn`t, since the state / *does */ have a say, but certainly, and more so in Pakistan, the child`s rights are taken away to the point of him/her being rendered little more than a piece of mouldable clay, with parents having the power to shape it any which way they`d like to. You don`t see this as at least slightly wrong!?

This is a complex issue, and the answer to your question has to be case-sensitive. A teacher may be violating the trust of the parents in, say, informing a girl of 16 of her legal rights viz. marriage. Or more simply, more commonly, by preparing children for the real world in stead of for exams, which the parents would prefer.

[But why are you a prejudiced nurturer. Why only young boys ? There is something else wrong (not with the relationship, but with you) if you can`t treat people equally, and nurture people of all ages and any sex. Especially if sex is not your goal. ]

I have to work with the `gifts` I have. If I cannot relate to adolescent girls, should that be reason to withhold the love I have for boys? To keep you from putting the question back to me, I say NO!! And there is nothing wrong with the relationships, or me, for it being that way. Further, why do you assume that I ``can`t nurture people of all ages and any sex``? Nurturing takes different forms, which have different motivations. Pleasure is not an evil motivation in my books.

[It just don`t make sense.]

Makes perfect sense to me. But then, I have the feelings, the natural motivations. And you probably have a slight prejudice.

[You`re hiding something and not just from us, from yourself]

I shall take that under advisement, though, quite honestly, I think not. If I were less introspective, I`d say you`ve got some nerve making that contention, but I won`t.

Peace to you to,

PM

baRa mazaa aaya!

Thank you Chowk for drinking this zeher-bhara GhooNT. A rather enjoyable read!

Even though most liberals (whatever that means) have to draw the line somewhere, the presence of this lolita-infatuation is counted upon for many of the successful rishtas in our arranged-marriage setup. When was the last time you heard of a ``momentary lapse of reason`` in the functioning of an otherwise ``enlightened`` brain when presented with a Chayay ka cup by a 15/16/17/18/19 year old?

halaNkeh is say farQ to paRta nahiN....

PM, enjoy the teekhay waar, you could be on the show (from my teenage years, where were you?) ``You Asked For It!``

PM:

Is what you`re doing wrong ? You tell me.

Are you sure that you are being entirely honest with yourself and the children in these relationships ? Are they mature enough or independent to make their own decisions ?

They are young, in fact so young that their parents are in charge of their intellectual growth. The parents define the DOs and the DONTS at this age. You are violating their parents trust by engaging in activities which they may not deem beneficial for their children. Thats one wrong.

What good do you see coming out of these relationships ? The nurturing part is fine and well. But why are you a prejudiced nurturer. Why only young boys ? There is something else wrong (not with the relationship, but with you) if you can`t treat people equally, and nurture people of all ages and any sex. Especially if sex is not your goal.

It just don`t make sense. You`re hiding something and not just from us, from yourself.

Peace.

Dear PM,

Although I totaly disagree (and then some) with your rationalizing pedophile addiction under the guise of ``boylove``, I have come to respect you as a person during these close to 200 interacts. You defended your position very well and spent a lot of personal time and energy to answer each and every interact. I admire your principled stand on the issue and would like to compliment you on your stamina and not getting out of the kitchen when it got hot. PM, here are some lyrics dedicated to you to the tune of ``Hey Macarena`` ....

Macarena: Los Del Rio/featuring The Bayside Boys

Album: Macarena Club Cutz

Source: Sabrina E. Jara (barnaby@ix.netcom.com)

Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena

Que tu cuerpo es pa` darle alegria y cosa buena

Dale a tu cuerpo alegria, Macarena

Hey, Macarena

When I dance they call me Macarena

And the boylovers they say que soy buena

They all want me, they can`t have me

so they all come and dance beside me

Move with me, chat with me

and if I could I`d take them home with me

(rpt 1, 1)

Now don`t you worry about my addiction

The boy who`s name is Nomi

I don`t want him, couldn`t stand him

He was no good so I

Now come on, what was I suppose to do

He was out of town and his other friend was so fine

(rpt 1...1)

Come find me, my name is Macarena

Always at the party con las chicas que estan buenas

Come join me, dance with me

And all you fellas chat along with me

(rpt 1...)

Don`t Get Caught Slow-Dancing Behind the Town Square:)-

XXOO,

Soldotna

re. Karakoram (#179)

[Maybe everyone has PM pegged down wrong. He`s not the abuser of power, at least not consciously. He needs unquestioning adoration and focused attention. He himself is a child (emotionally). He cannot face the reality around him and finds solace in spending time with children who are not fully aware or worry about the complexities of life that he deals with. He feels some pride in imparting his wisdom to these children, who most probably are enamored by him, due to the amount of attention he bestows on them.]

Hmmm... Interesting. You may even be right. My question is, even if you are right, ``does that in itself make the relationships `wrong`? Can no good come of them merely because I have my problems with `reality`?

jus` wondering...

[He doesn`t like girls because they remind him of the unsuccessful attempts he has had with more mature women...]

C`mon! That`s a laugh. Go go on confusing cause with effect, buddy.

[...and the fact that people in Pakistan are more careful with their daughters...]

I`m trying very hard NOT to see this as an instance of homophobia-couched-in-concern, now.

But thanks for the input anyway. Hell, it WOULD be nice to have that double hundred!

regards,

PM

RE: PM

Hey ``Love-Joy``...??? I normally behave myself, i.e avoid F words...but when I come across crap like yours, pandaled as ``literary pursuit of knowledge`` that just does it for me, I suppose I could have used ``carnal knowledge`` but the four letter word really does it for me...and while we are on the subject of my net ettiquettes, please try to take it in the true spirit of ``fag ghaziness like yourself`` and think of my indiscretions as ``emphasis`` or ``exclamation points``...and not some ``rude`` ``bad words``.

Also, Sohail Saab thinks I am a shameless creature, who accused you of ``screwing (feel better) 13 yr olds`` in fact the fact of the matter is that you just don`t screw `em, but ``think and fantasize`` about screwing `em. I wonder how did that vital point escaped me...( which btw I am still trying to deal with ) since you somewhere ``rejoiced`` that you can`t be held ``legally responsible`` cause you committed nothing and admitted nothing, ( which on another level tells me you are a coward too ) but then again probably my brain polarity is all hozed up. What`s the point of all this you ask my boy lover person, I saw my name tossed around because ``civilized people`` on this forum think I am vulgar, may be so, but I think, If you can post such garbage indisguise of ``quality literature`` may be I can have have my opinion too, its just that I don`t say it in too many words like yourself, and ``the rest of the civilized bunch should really tune my noise out and see if there is any content besides it, like not grab the F word and run but more like, OK waheed stop cursing and do you have something to contribute to the discussion, and you know sometimes the only thing to contribute could be utter disgust, ain`t nothing wrong with that`` but I still dont` mind the occasional public embarrassment when ``good people`` tell me to shut up and think about what I said, its the part of the package. something like that``, plus I really don`t feel its such a shocker, is it..? and I still think you are full of s-h-i-t!

Chowkies, I am sorry if I offended anyones F sensors, I am taking remedial ``ettiquette classes`` soon...Happy...!

Maybe everyone has PM pegged down wrong. He`s not the abuser of power, at least not consciously. He needs unquestioning adoration and focused attention. He himself is a child (emotionally). He cannot face the reality around him and finds solace in spending time with children who are not fully aware or worry about the complexities of life that he deals with. He feels some pride in imparting his wisdom to these children, who most probably are enamored by him, due to the amount of attention he bestows on them.

He doesn`t like girls because they remind him of the unsuccessful attempts he has had with more mature women and the fact that people in Pakistan are more careful with their daughters.

Sex may just be a natural progression of events, not the goal per se. In short PM is doing the best he think he can and due to his fear of reality he believes it to be what he actually wants to do.

Just a theory.

Peace.

Dear Zahra (#173)

Good to see you `join` us again!

[Mr. PM: Lo and Behold! I guess you need some rest. What if all your energies are consumed in retorting the ones with raised eyebrows ? What if you consume ``all`` your intellect on this post and are left with none for the Class you have got to teach ? What if .....]

Hey, believe it or not... I`m infused with renewed vigour with every post I send. No kidding. Maybe this WAS a cartharcic (sp?) experience after all.

regards,

PM