Harm @ MindSay 
Dixie currently feels:
Depressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, let's be chronological.
The last time I blogged, it was a day or two before I went down to Southend.
And I was worried about going because of the cuts on my arms.
So when I was there - first day, I wore my green striped hoody, second day I had an arm-warmer on, and the third day, I wore the hoody again. And I slept in long sleeved pyjamas.
That aside - I only had one battery for the mp3 player I borrowed from my mam, and it lasted up until the morning of the last day. Not bad.
I shared a room with nana, and we got free sachets of coffee, tea and hot chocolate with a kettle and stuff - so I had hot chocolate each night before bed.
I took the extra one home with me, and I drank that a few days ago, because it was really nice.
Nana brought ham sarnies and chicken drumsticks and Jaffa Cake bars for on the journey down - and we stopped at a Little Chef to eat on the way back.
And it was there that I had my most expensive crisps ever.
They were 99p - and I've had better ones for 10p.
When we were in Southend, we went to see the family down there.
My great Aunty Betty and Uncle Roy, we went to see for about five hours on Saturday, and for another three on Sunday morning.
As they do every single time, they made us ham sandwiches on Saturday, and cheese on toast on Sunday morning.
They're both really nice - never stop talking, never run out of things to say.
But I do feel sorry for them, they're both in their early 80s. Betty doesn't get out much because she has dodgy hips and knees.
She likes me though.
I like her too.
She seems to have high aspirations for me... I can't understand why.
Then we went to see Alice and Charlie - who are in their mid-80s.
They scare me, they scare me a lot.
Then there was Robert, my mother's cousin - who I hate with a passion.
I sat there in silence for the entrie time.
Of course, mother said I was ignorant, but she can piss off at the moment, which I'll explain why further down...
...So, the week at school.
This week.
Hmm.
The only good things are that I've got myself a B for my Science coursework, and today I managed to round off all of my IT coursework.
Parry has signed me up for counselling - and despite how much I protested, I was forced.
I was downright fucking forced.
I do not like the idea one bit - I know I'm being unfair, as everyone says, I'm not taking their advice, I'm throwing it back at them, whatever.
I know I'm being unreasonable, I'm well aware of that.
But the worst - oh, I was betrayed.
When I first started talking to her in year 10, I was told my parents would never need to be told about my self harm issue.
Yes.
So mother was called in on Thursday afternoon, and told everything.
Somehow, I don't think that's quite keeping it fucking quiet.
So my mam told me what she thinks of me.
She hates me - she says my only good quality is my intelligence, and that she'd rather have a thick kid who was nice.
Apparently I'm the most horrible person in the world, I'm ignorant, anti-social, lazy and ungrateful.
Yep, that's me.
And today I've had two of my friends leave me, because they're cunts.
Though, Emily loves me, she's always there for me.
Adam loves me, he's not going to leave me after 10 years.
My new friend Reiss loves me, he's there to listen.
Sammie loves me, she said she'll never let me go.
And my daddy loves me.
He's being so nice to me.
He bought me a squishy puffer-fish toy and made me pancakes for breakfast.
He keeps tickling me and babying me.
I poured my heart out to him yesterday, told him about my self harm and how I want to end life.
He said even if it doesn't help, I'm always welcome to talk to him.
I love my daddy, and my daddy loves me.
Dixie currently feels:
Depressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today was Saturday.
Adam came round, as he normally does - and we played Guitar Hero III co-op, messed about with random stuff, and ate pizza - like we normally do.
I got all of my WWE wrestling action figures out from under my bed, and we posed them into a 10-man orgy.
It was quite funny, in its own little immature way.
After Adam had gone, and I'd went offline, I took SR out of his tin and cut my arms again.
The strain of holding it back from Tuesday was taking its toll on me.
I don't know.
Today's just been generally uneventful.
I got my first 100% on Expert today on Guitar Hero III.
This marks the first 100% score on Expert, and the first song to have 100% on every single difficulty level.
Closer, by Lacuna Coil.
It's a bonus song, but unlike many of them, it's decent enough to earn a 4 star rating in my media library.
There's new stuff on my DeviantArt, if anybody's interested.
Date Line July 20, 2007
We can set aside the religious tradition. We can also set aside the fact that the physical act of circumcision is also the symbolic Christian name (St. Paul’s Doctrine of Salvation by Faith or Law) for the Laws of Moses. We can, if we are of the Right-wing idiot brigade.
Reality check! How do we set aside the very real medical evidence that circumcision is a major defense against the spreading of sexually transmitted disease? How do we justify exposing children and newer generations to widespread epidemics?
Until the 1960's, nearly ninety (90%) percent of American males were circumcised. During the period in which the Right-wing rose to power, and the Evangelical Fundamentalists became a political force, that number has dropped to fifty-seven (57%) percent and the spread of STD’s has grown dramatically.
Remember, the doctrine of those who would destroy you and the land you live in: Do the most harm to the most people! This doctrine is now infiltrating the Jewish community, where circumcision remains a near universal practice.
“Near universal” because there are always a few who had both their heritage and their children enough to see them exposed to disease. It is a harsh reality, even ion the days of Moses, we are told there were those who did not mark their doorposts to keep away the Angel of Death.
Jewish Law, as you might have read in other postings, is a medical text for the wise. The following of the laws was what kept Jewish communities free of the plagues which, during the sixteenth and into the seventh century, killed millions of those who set aside the law in favor of a Doctrine of Faith.
As any who has read scripture knows, the Doctrine of Faith, as set down by St. Paul, forbids the adoption of any of the 613 laws which constitute the Circumcision (Laws of Moses). Any who have read Leviticus are aware that the simple act of washing is a repeated law.
St. Paul set up an interesting Catch-22 for any who were his nineteenth century followers. For those before the coming of indoor water and central heating, being told to avoid washing was the relief of a burden.
It is worth noting that the Romans had indoor plumbing based upon the use of lead pipe. Of course this contributed to lead poisoning and the insanity which resulted in them discarding plumbing in favor of faith as dictated by Paul, rather than based on The Rock designated by Jesus. But who cares about that.
The point today is that history is clear. The Circumcision, the physical act and the related laws, promote human health and well-being. It is therefore important that these be ended by any society which worships disease and its spread.
Look at all the nations which do not practice circumcision. Take a very good look at them.
Those with well financed cradle-to-grave universal health care have STD epidemics which are easily identified and contained. Those nations without such care have major infection rates which are killing, debilitating significant of their societies.
America, as promoted and portrayed by the Right-wing, is a nation which lives by the sword. It is a nation which cares very little for its young. It is a nation which cuts support programs in favor of military conflicts of choice intended to destabilize geographic regions.
The most harm to the most people. The Right-wing doctrine which has controlled our nation for over a quarter century has begun to attack basic health and welfare issues among those who also consider them a tenet of faith and belief. It has been done, Paul did it, people died.
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
- A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
- The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
- If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
- Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
- Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
- Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
- Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
- Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Always A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed.
For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
The plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true.
Defenses to claims of defamation include:
- Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in Canada (with the exception of Quebec). In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
- Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
- Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to their spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
- Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
- Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (example: to keep others from being harmed) are defenses to a defamation claim, if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
- Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim.
CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL POST
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]