Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Am I lovely? Do you want me? I am hungry.

After mindlessly browsing around myspace, I came across a pretty picture of a girl whos e thigh was as wide as my neck! She still thinks shes fat though, which is pretty disturbing. She already developed what we could call "lanugo" or peach fuzz on her lower arms. It was pretty sick if you ask me. Im not a hypocrete, I myself have an eating disorder but I am not gonna let my arm hairs grow wet and wild for heaven's sake!

I dont think I would be happy if my thighs looked like these, but I like her arms and her waist. Her non-existent boobs: no commento, mr roboto.

Am I doing a bad thing for advocating anorexia on my blog? I dont know. Suddenly the thought hit me like a brick on a's my own goddamn blog, bitch!

Anorexics are known to wear several bracelets, it's like an underground handshake secret society thing for people with ED's (eating disorders).

The red "ana" bracelet reportedly signals anorexia. Some say it is a reminder to teens that they shouldn't eat.

Red bracelets represent anorexia, purple is for bulimia and black and blue is for self injury, such as cutting and self mutilation.

The nickname Ana is for anorexia and Mia is for bulimics.

Should I create an imaginary friend named Ana Mia to pop up like the ghost of Christmas past whenever I think of stuffing myself in a chinese restaurant?

Haha!:) Sounds like a good idea. I am sick and fucking tired of my crap body anyway, I am getting old too.

Several drawbacks from having could die or end up like Teri Schiavo (God bless her soul).

If you've been living under a rock for the past 2 years, heres a brief info:

Theresa Marie Schindler grew up in the Huntingdon Valley area of Lower Moreland Township, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the eldest of three children of Robert and Mary Schindler. Her younger siblings were Robert Jr. (Bobby) and Suzanne (now Suzanne Vitadamo). By her senior year in high school, Schiavo was overweight, with a height of 5 feet, 3 inches (160 cm) and a weight of around 200 pounds (90 kg). She went on a NutriSystem diet and lost about 55 pounds (25 kg).[2] She may have developed an eating disorder around this time.[3] In 1981, she graduated from Archbishop Wood Catholic High School.

On the morning of February 25, 1990, at approximately 5:30 a.m. EST, Schiavo collapsed in a hallway of their St. Petersburg apartment. Firefighters and paramedics arriving in response to Michael's 9-1-1 call found her face-down and unconscious. She was not breathing and had no pulse. They attempted to resuscitate her, she was defibrillated several times, and transported to the Humana Northside Hospital. There she was intubated, ventilated, and eventually given a tracheotomy, with a poor prognosis.

The cause of her cardiac arrest has never been determined. For a time, it was believed that her cardiac arrest had been caused by an imbalance of electrolytes in her blood. On admission to hospital, her serum potassium level was noted to be very low, at 2.0 mEq/L; the normal range for adults is 3.5–5.0 mEq/L. It was speculated that her low potassium level had in turn been caused by an eating disorder; her medical chart contained a note that "she apparently has been trying to keep her weight down with dieting by herself, drinking liquids most of the time during the day and drinking about 10–15 glasses of iced tea".



Schiavo, then 26, collapsed in her home in 1990 and experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest. She remained in a coma for ten weeks. Within three years, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).

Despite intervention by the other branches, the courts continued to hold that Schiavo was in a PVS, and would want to cease life support. Her feeding tube was removed a third and final time on March 18, 2005. She died thirteen days later at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31, 2005, at the age of 41.

So thats that apparently. Tomorrow is another day..another challenge on how to lose the last 100 pounds. LOL.

FACT: A study by the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders reported that 5 – 10% of anorexics die within 10 years after contracting the disease; 18-20% of anorexics will be dead after 20 years and only 30 – 40% ever fully recover

Saturday, August 26, 2006

The Bible doesn't speak meaningfully to my suffering.

Deep unspeakable suffering may well be called a baptism, a regeneration, the initiation into a new state.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

"The lack of self-esteem produces more symptoms of psychiatric disorders than any other factor yet identified."-Dr. James Dobson

* A mid-life crisis is an emotional state of doubt and anxiety in which a person becomes uncomfortable with the realization that life is halfway over. It commonly involves reflection on what the individual has done with his life up to that point, often with feelings that not enough was accomplished. The individual may feel boredom with their lives, jobs, or their partners, and may feel a strong desire to make changes in these areas. ...

Midlife Crisis

'Midlife Crisis' is something that happens to many of us at some point during our lives (usually, at about 40, give or take 20 years).

Midlife Crisis is a natural process (first identified by the psychologist Carl Jung) and it is a normal part of 'maturing'. However, Midlife Crisis can sometimes feel very uncomfortable, and cause people to seek psychotherapy or counselling, or to make radical lifestyle changes that can be very damaging and are regretted later.

It can help to view Midlife Crisis from the perspective of differing personality types, as this will give you a greater understanding of what is happening.

If you are going through midlife crisis, you might experience a wide range of feelings, such as:

* Discontent with life and/or the lifestyle that may have provided happiness for many years
* Boredom with things/people that have hitherto held great interest and dominated your life
* Feeling adventurous and wanting to do something completely different
* Questioning the meaning of life, and the validity of decisions clearly and easily made years before
* Confusion about who you are, or where your life is going.
These feelings at mid-life can occur naturally, or they can be brought on by external factors.

One external factor can be debt. The availability of credit has become easier in recent years, through credit cards and telephone/internet loans. This has made it easier to accumulate debt, and many people turn to debt consolidation or debt management services in order to find their way out of difficulty.

Another external factor can be a bereavement, such as the death of a parent - or other significant loss or change, such as redundancy or divorce. These things can cause significant grief which can be difficult enough to come to terms with on their own. But if they are compounded by the natural process of 'mid-life transition' this can make the whole process of adjustment bewildering and overwhelming.

However, even in the absence of difficult external circumstances, there is still an internal process of change that takes place during midlife. If you don't understand that process it can feel like a 'crisis' and as you attempt to come to terms with it, you may find yourself making poor or irrational decisions that you regret at a later date - eg: leaving your job or spouse and throwing away the security that you have built up in the first part of your adult life.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

"Let that which does not matter truely slide..."

The Essence of Real Trust

Trust me when I tell you I need to be alone for now, and believe it or not, it has nothing to do with you. I am suffering from emotional burn-out and I am afraid of
running through a massive breakdown if I attempt to fix our so called problem.

I say so-called because some problems are not direct, actually most problems
are symptoms of one big problem. Like for example you have herpes, it doesnt mean
that you have a weak immune system. It might just mean that you have HIV.
I dont know if I put that in the right context.

I am writing this in hopes that you will remove the defamatory article you wrote
about me, and I am writing this so it wont get worse. I did receive your message
yesterday evening, I dont know how to react to it. How do you want me to react to it?
I hear it every month. You better be careful of who you talk to, you are too trusting on people you meet online. You need to be a bit paranoid too.

Anyway I will write more later or tomorrow or this weekend if I have time.

In the meantime enjoy yourself and the simple pleasures of solitary confinement.

.........and please no more blog-based personal attacks, you are so Osama.

Temple Totem of the Total Totalitarian

You are a

Social Moderate
(41% permissive)

and an...

Economic Liberal
(30% permissive)

You are best described as a:


Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Defamatory Tryin to be Self-Explainatory

What is the definition of libel?

The classic definition is:

"a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
(Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108)

Bloggers' FAQ - Online Defamation Law

The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
What is defamation?

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as

a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e., noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Who is a public figure?

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Examples of public figures:

* A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
* A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
* A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
* Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.

What are the rules about reporting on a public proceeding?

In some states, there are legal privileges protecting fair comments about public proceedings. For example, in California you have a right to make "a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued." This provision has been applied to posting on an online message board, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also be applied to blogs. The California privilege also extends to fair and true reports of public meetings, if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit.

What is a "fair and true report"?

A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.

What if I want to report on a public controversy?

Many jurisdictions recognize a "neutral reportage" privilege, which protects "accurate and disinterested reporting" about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them."

If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?

Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting "special damages" — the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff's failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon)

If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be "substantially as conspicuous" as the original alleged defamation.

What if I change the person's name?

To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name — the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.

Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?

Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)

Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more.

But Section 230 is not a panacea. While the vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary's distribution of defamation, one California court has held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor's liability in a defamation case. The case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, is under appeal to the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case).

Can I get insurance to cover defamation claims?

Yes. Many insurance companies are now offering media liability insurance policies designed to cover online libel claims. However, the costs could be steep for small blogs — The minimum annual premium is generally $2,500 for a $1 million limit, with a minimum deductible of $5,000. In addition, the insurer will conduct a review of the publisher, and may insist upon certain standards and qualifications (i.e. procedures to screen inflammatory/offensive content, procedures to "take down" content after complaint). The Online Journalism Review has an extensive guide to libel insurance for online publishers.

Will my homeowner's or renter's insurance policy cover libel lawsuits?

Maybe. Eugene Volokh's the Volokh Conspiracy notes that homeowner's insurance policies, and possibly also some renter's or umbrella insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits, though they usually exclude punitive damages and liability related to "business pursuits." (This would generally exclude blogs with any advertising). You should read your insurance policy carefully to see what coverage it may provide.

What's the statute of limitation on libel?

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

How do courts look at the context of a statement?

For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.

Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).

What is "Libel Per Se"?

When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

* Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
* Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
* Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
* Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.

What is a "false light" claim?

Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

Legal Guide