Welcome to Amber's Guest Book.

Your administrator is Amber Pawlik

Previous Page |Home| Next Page

 Records: 1148 | Currently: 81 - 62New Entry

A friend (spydielives@yahoo.com)
Date:Fri 10 Jun 2005 08:47:49 AM EDT
Subject:Comments on your rants?
 Why don't you have commenting enabled on your rants? It seems to me that those would be an excellent place for dialogs.

Andrew L. (ablivernois@yahoo.com)
Date:Wed 08 Jun 2005 02:59:19 PM EDT
Subject:beyond recipe-bashing
 I first came over to your site as a result of Sadly_No's taunting about your recipes, and what I found kinda intrigued me: On the one hand, there's the objectivist anti-feminist side of you, which (frankly) I have a hard time relating to. But then I see that you've got a little "walk-on-the-wild-side" part of your personality, with your interest in the S&M lifestyle. So I thought, Hmmm . . . might be interesting. Maybe there's some hope for her if we can just get her to put down the Ayn Rand. Then I read your political writings -- in particular your hawkish anti-terrorist, "lets go attack another country that has not taken any specific actions which threaten our security" views -- and I have decided that nope, there's nothing there to relate to. If, after seeing the senseless horrors we have unleashed in Iraq -- the thousands upon thousands of dead or horribly injured civilians (who did NOTHING to deserve this, except living under an oppressive regime); the 1,600 dead and thousands of injured U.S. Soldiers; the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure; the creation of chaos and instability; the elimination of U.S. moral superiority and respect throughout the world; the undermining of international cooperation -- you now think that it would be a good idea to go after Iran, then you must be on a different planet than I am. Clearly you are an intelligent woman -- you have a college education, and a job as an engineer. So you can think. But it seems that you have purposefully put blinders on yourself, and are unwilling to SEE and fully comprehend what this war means. For all of your intelligence, you seem unwilling to allow yourself to FEEL what it must be like for a man or woman in Iraq, to have your children blown up or shot, and to watch your child die and to then have to bury that little child in a tiny coffin. To have your house blown up. To be living in 100 degree heat with sporadic electricity in the middle of a Bahgdad summer. To live in daily fear tha the next time you walk to the store to get groceries, you might be blown to bits by a suicide bomb. Those are the real consequences of our actions. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, and yes the world is better off without him in power. But you always have to ask yourself -- how much are you willing to spend (in innocent people's lives and blood) to bring that about. How much of the national treasure are you willing to squander? How many lives are you willing to destroy? And until you have really grappled with that reality, and struggled with it, then you shouldn't make claims about the wisdom of invading another country.

Chris (chris@langan-fox.com.au)
Date:Wed 08 Jun 2005 02:28:32 AM EDT
 What breath of fresh air is that, that just wafted in? Amber, I am refreshed from reading a few of your thoughts. Well done.

An interested reader (alevy01@student.sullivan.edu)
Date:Tue 07 Jun 2005 09:26:58 PM EDT
Subject:At least one article needs refreshing
 Have you considered re-writing "Money is the cure to all evil" in light of GWB and Afghanistan/Iraq? I am not claiming necessarily that GWB is evil, at least not yet, but the US has now declared war on "someone," namely "the terrorists" of those countries, and has invaded and killed so-called insurgents and innocent civilians. I do not see any US-class struggle there. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out for me.

Michael Scott (secretlaboratory@gmail.com)
Date:Tue 07 Jun 2005 07:39:37 AM EDT
Subject:Objectivist thought re: gay rights and marriage?
 Amber, I'm interested in and am learning about Objectivist thought, and I found your web site. I thought, since you have some good thoughts on gender issues, might you expand on this a bit and get into the area of gay rights and marriage in America? Thanks, Mike

Kevin de Bruxelles (kbatho@yahoo.com)
Date:Tue 07 Jun 2005 05:43:17 AM EDT
 Your recipes are totally disgusting. Have you ever heard of Alice Waters? Here's a hint on how to cook: get the best quality local products that you can find and cook them in a simple fashion. Never buy any industrial corporate faux-food garbage and mix it with other chemical warfare extracts and call it a recipe. Your recipes are sick, except the stuffed shells which is OK.

R. Dickson (rod_dickson@hotmail.com)
Date:Tue 07 Jun 2005 03:07:43 AM EDT
Subject:Good Luck with your tour in the military
 Had a look at your website. You seem confused. Had my MA when I went into the USAF ('81- '85.) You will be a different person after you get out. Nobody can say how different-not even you. But there will be a change. EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm sorry sir, but I am not in the military and not sure what you are talking about.

Definitely Not Sadly, No (@defnitely_not@notsadlyno.com)
Date:Sat 04 Jun 2005 07:18:37 PM EDT
 I am a person who wants to make a meal. However, all of your delicious recipes have been made by me for my family already. Would it be at all possible to post more recipes? We would like to make them regularly, and a new recipe, posted for instance every week, would be quite delicious and nourishing for myself and my family. Signed, A housewife on the Internet

Pottsie (pottsied@yahoo.com)
Date:Sat 09 Apr 2005 07:42:31 AM EDT
Subject:Amber and dishonesty.
 Hello Amber, I used to think you were a bit of a Horn Bag, you know the type a bloke marries and then wants to give a good boning and have babies with. I must admit to becoming somewhat cheesed and feeling the you were another gullible dupe or perhaps a purveyor of duplicity with the oxymoronical statement that you "hate dishonesty, but have in the past admired Condeleeza Rice". Surely it must be that the hazy focus of naivety is evolving into the clarity that permits you to realise that those in "power" are irredeemabley psychotic. Their self esteem is directly proportional to their perceived number of suboordinates. These fools in suits feel worthless unless their is some poor sod to inflict their dictates upon. Remember that the truth will always depose a lie. This is why the living personification of Misery that sits upon the throne of the US tries and blows so hard. Get that fanny of yours working, tell that punk of yours to stop playing, and have some kids. Darryl.

Mike Liu (mikexin@yahoo.com)
Date:Thu 07 Apr 2005 11:20:42 AM EDT
Subject:Thanks for the grammar lessons...
 ... but i repectfully disagree with your political views. btw.. Nice site

George Mason (sixthcolumn@gmail.com)
Date:Thu 24 Mar 2005 08:06:51 PM EST
Subject:An Objectivist Saying Hi!
 I am very glad that one of our contributors to our website alerted me to you and your writings. I have been an Objectivist since 1965 and publish both a website, 6th Column Against Jihad for "thought pieces" mostly concerning the war with Islam. We also publish a daily blog for current events, Sixth Column. Two of us, my wife ("Cubed") and I are fully Objectivist while some of the contributors have not yet made the full leap, but we orient what we do via Objectivism. I want you to know that we exist and to invite you to look over our material. It may well fit with some of your interests. We are always looking for writers, particularly Objectivists who have their heads screwed on right. Best to you//George Mason

Asher (inness@dscisp.com)
Date:Fri 18 Mar 2005 01:47:55 PM EST
Subject:Ibid: Clarity Critics
 I scanned this website in my search for information concerning evolution, and was astounded by the pseudo-intellectual pomposity found here. This writer may have a future as in intellectual if at some point in the future they realize they are basing nearly the entirety of their 'critical' works on logical fallacies. Assumptions must be proven before they are used to further develop an argument. While "they" can be cited as sources, the author can't expect any educated readers to view the work favorably. That the essays on this site are presented as elucide and rational only begs hypocrisy. Finally, as stated earlier, if the author will at some point in the future allow evidence to enter into her work then there may be growth as both a human being and an intellectual. Until then what we have is compositional ego masturbation by someone with a partial understanding of logic, a passing familiarity with how argumentative essays appear in form only, and a larger than average (which isn't saying much) vocabulary. I can only recommend keeping up the good work. Perhaps improvement will appear on the horizon.

Charles Wakefield (Slip Low) (charles_d_wakefield@yahoo.com)
Date:Thu 10 Mar 2005 12:47:23 PM EST
Subject:Nice site...
 I will read more on your site later. I like your comments, and I will forever LOL @ "I shall now be called Aisha Muhammad - after Muhammad's beloved 6 yr old wife!" Charles...

Bart (bsbs_96@hotmail.com)
Date:Tue 08 Mar 2005 06:17:59 PM EST
 You certainly are lucky that free speech exists. Because it is people like you, those that spread ignorant messages to the even more ignorant masses, that lies and hate spread so rampantly in U.S. society. Please stop. For the love of all that is holy, just stop writing and especially stop pretending to be knowledgable about religion, international relations, and anything else for that matter. Stop. Unplug the computer. And never...EVER...write another article again. Please. The world is begging you. You just have no clue. Those people that you quote in your rants section...I would LOVE to read their qualifications. I would truly like to know what kind of education a person has, when they can say the following about YOUR writing: "The body of the article--the case itself--was extremely well written. Your philosophical analysis was exceptional, as were your conclusions and your quotations". And your boyfriend doesn't count as a credible literary critic. Sorry. And then this one post in your guestbook also made me chuckle: "What an amazing writing and philisophical talent you have! Organized, cohesive, and well documented works such as these deserve a larger publishing circut. Keep up the good work and stay true to your style. Its a sure winner!". Holy crap. THAT'S what is wrong with the world...people like Joshua. I'm sure he is a very nice person, but if he thinks your writing is cohesive and well documented....there is no way he should have ever graduated from high school. His only excuse is that he may still be in high school. That is all.

RightorWrong (Lunatick245@hotmail.com)
Date:Wed 02 Mar 2005 08:57:20 PM EST
 It is a shame, seeing as cute engineers are rare, that you have such a horribly misguided paper "The Real Problem With Christianity" here. We should dicuss this at PW sometime. But really, that is an increadibly short sighted paper. Lumping all the Christian's as a whole is increadibly cheap. I realize at PW I say some radical shit - but truthfuly provoking people, I have found, is the absolute best way to bring them off balance and get some truth from them. But I never knew you were anti-Christian. That's a shame. I've you've never talked to a Christian totally against organized religion perhaps I can shed some light on more realistic problems with Christianity.

RightorWrong (Lunatick245@hotmail.com)
Date:Wed 02 Mar 2005 06:14:46 PM EST
Subject:Hm so you're into engineering?
 Nice site, eh? I'll have to remember all the links. But as for the engineering one - that's just bad ass. A girl into higher mathematics is always cool in my book. *sigh* Now if only you were a little further leaning to the right, no? Rock on.

Joshua (opetke@hotmail.com)
Date:Thu 24 Feb 2005 04:11:00 PM EST
Subject:Gender Articles
 What an amazing writing and philisophical talent you have! Organized, cohesive, and well documented works such as these deserve a larger publishing circut. Keep up the good work and stay true to your style. Its a sure winner!

madame_prez@hotmail.com (madame_prez2020@hotmail.com)
Date:Thu 24 Feb 2005 02:20:33 AM EST
 Hey, I have to defend myself here, sorry Amber, I don't want your site to be turned into a debate forum, but this must be said, if he had a long range rocket program, why didn't he drop a bomb on our heads when we attacked him? And FOX news, yes FOX news reported about a month ago that the search for WMD was CALLED OFF! SO if he did have this so called WMD program, why didn't we find anything and why was the search called off, hmmmmmm??? Try actually PAYING ATTENTION to the world around you.---------------------------Sorry to butt in here Amber but I cant let the statement below go uncorrected. Duelfer said that Saddam had his WMD programs running at idle speed ready to go back into production after the heat was off. He also had his long range rocket program going at full progress. He was using the UN Oil for Food program to get money for raw materials. He also said that Russia and France had officials in Baghdad helping their weapons companies get WMD materials and weapons in around the sanctions. This was all going on right under Hans Blix's nose. Try actually READING the report. -------------------

Omar (Joshua) Bradley (diomedes@rock.com)
Date:Sun 13 Feb 2005 09:13:53 PM EST
Subject:Uhh, I dunno
 I was just cruisin' at ProtestWarrior.com and came across this site. Looks good, feels good, tastes good. Well, good luck, bon voyage and adios.

Chris (crbates@csbsju.edu)
Date:Sun 13 Feb 2005 05:05:39 PM EST
 In the article about modesty and women, were those your thoughts about the levels of modesty? I believe they were Slut, modest woman, prude, Burqa wearers. You defined modest woman as one that covers her primary sexual body parts covered. My question about that is how covered do they need to be? Would tin muffin cups over the nipples and piece of ductape over the crotch suffice? How about the slut? Can she a burqa? For the Burqa wearers you mention that the government, particularly in iran forces the women to wear such clothes as to conceeal them from head to toe. Would this mean that they are forced to be modest? Are they to blame for being to modest? The distinctions you make are are two levels, one of sexual character and one on how the woman dresses. They are different. I dont see why a woman couldnt wear a burqa but have sex with every guy she sees, and i dont see why a woman can't wear only a string bikini and high heals wherever she goes, but discriminiate intently on whom she decides to take as a partner. I think maybe that section of your paper needs a little revision.

Previous Page |Home| Next Page