Orion: A Year in the Life

Orion: A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist.  The book chronicles my life as I proceeded through 2017.  Consists of traveling across the country as well as ideas and commentary on political, economic, and social issues.  Click here for preview and link to purchase.

I am adding commentary and rereleasing this book, the first book of the Green or Year in a Life Series with the sequel Orion 2018.

Below is a negative review of the book and my point response to what is hardly a review and more of an uninformative unpointed inaccurate attack.

The response to the Tropical Mary Review of a Year in the Life of a Revolutionist.

 Mary’s Review and Orion’s Point by Point Response

She begins the review with the introduction of my book followed by comments by people she had read the blurb

Comments made by individuals who read the blurb:

“People don’t think the Government be controlling us through economic means and quasi-imperialist foreign policy, but it do.”

– Conspiracy author who can’t tell the difference between Communism and Socialism

– @totalitariantom

“Well, I can’t tell if we’re seizing the means of production or creating the means of production and if the people will control the production or nominate people to control the production through a socialist/communist ideology built around capitalism.”

– @sinisterpeacock

“Buckle up, kids! This is going to be a long ass review.”

– @TropicalMary

Mary begins with the above-mentioned comments to discredit the author by implying he is a communist and/or a conspiracy author.  The content of the book as described in the blurb are a chronicle of the authors life in 2017, there is no mention of the government controlling anyone.  In fact, the author is of the position and it is mentioned in the book that the government is merely a facilitator of an interest, and has no inherent interest besides the interest it has been created to facilitate.  In acknowledgement of this position, it is impossible to assert the “government be controlling us”, because the government has no interest, beyond the interest it represents.

Below the comment read “a conspiracy author who can’t tell the difference between capitalism and socialism”.  It began with a hyphen, which may indicate it is the commenters tag, but as your first impression, it suggests that I am a conspiracy author who cannot tell the difference between capitalism and socialism.  The book makes no mention of any political or economic conspiracy theories.  All serious political and economic arguments are built on well cited sources, created by, or accepted in the academic community.

This is not what the book is about.  The book is the story of someone struggling, on a journey where he must do the things he has to do, to position himself to do the things he wants to do.  The book discusses principles, thought processes, and reflections concerning the world around him, including the constraints of his disadvantages.

The reviewer is being deceptive, associating the book with genres of information which are unrelated to the content and discrediting.

The second comment attempts to reinforce the idea the book is about political theory, and communist in nature, again deceptive for the purpose of alienating people from the book by implying a genre of information unrelated to the content.

This is a very badly written book. The language was colloquial and informal, which simply isn’t suitable for the message that the narrative is trying to convey, if the blurb is anything to go by. Somehow, the colloquialisms used also felt forced and unnatural. There were too many grammatical errors for me to overlook, with “seen” instead of “saw” being one of the primary issues, as well as “lol” in the text and at extremely inappropriate times.

“It is possible I may start something akin to a religion, which is less like religion and simply an acknowledgement of observable truth, evidence based speculation on the hereafter, and understanding through ideal logic, the best trajectory for the human species in consideration of individual liberty. A closeness to god that only comes through acknowledging his irrelevancy. Lol.” (Locations 1970-1973).

I write as I think and as I speak, both formally and informally.  A record of cause and effect, motivation, intention, action, result, and purposes.  The feeling the reviewer had from colloquialism being forced or unnatural are her own subjective feelings, likely stemming from a lack of familiarity with American underclass culture.  What is important is whether the paragraphs properly convey an idea, which depends as much on the comprehension skills and the disposition of the reader as it does with the creator of the content.

In her example of an inappropriate lol, she uses the quote “a closeness to god that only comes through acknowledging his irrelevancy”.  Before I demonstrate her inability to comprehend a simple point, I must first state the fact that an lol is appropriate anytime something causes you to laugh out loud, hence the acronym lol.  What was funny about the statement?

The portion of the book this paragraph was cited from, explains the principles that maximize liberty in a multi-being environment.  The argument is that the nature of existence is liberty, and thus the nature of the creator is liberty, defined as the ability or scope to do as one pleases.  (Webster’s definition with the substitution of the word act for the word do for clarity)

In short a being is completely free to do as they please until they are imposed on by another being or a circumstance that affects their ability to exercise liberty in their environment.  Meaning respect of reasonable boundaries, and balancing through adequate opportunity for disadvantages, primarily economic disadvantages, as one is only as free as they can afford to be.  The third is objectivity in application, where ones circles and allegiances (family, friends, company, etc) does not compromise that application.

If the nature of the creation is liberty, demonstrable by the history and natural laws of the universe as well as the earth under the control of human beings collectively, then the creator is bound by the principles with which he has caused existence to exist.  For those who believe in god, your god cannot intercede on your behalf and god does not love you.  God does not have rules, commandments, and servants, except those rules that logically produce liberty: boundaries, balance, and objectivity, and these are for your benefit not his.

God is like a man who builds a house and gives it to a group of people.  His intentions are that all the people of the house would be free to do what they please, but should they collectively exercise their liberty to choose tyranny god isn’t coming back to correct the dysfunction as it is against his nature.  It causes god to impose on the liberty of beings he created to be free.  In the hereafter, based on NDEs and regressive hypnosis, I speculate there is liberty eternal for those who choose liberty in application, and tyranny for those who choose tyranny in application, which is still the exercise of liberty.

It is a funny thing to acknowledge, among a people programed by other people to see god as an authority figure, parent/child, slave/master relationship, who think they can be close to god through obedience; that closeness to god comes from acknowledging that god is irrelevant to a liberated being.  A liberated being, being one who applies BBO.

I have a difficult time believing the reviewer didn’t understand the material, as these concepts were reconstituted and demonstrated in more than one portion of the book, but what other conclusion do I draw from her review?  Either she did not read or she does not comprehend, yet still forms a strong opinion about what she did not understand.  Otherwise we don’t have the erroneous inappropriate lol assertion.

There was a lot of awkward sentence structure, which again was very informal, and how I think the author speaks generally. You may speak this way, but you cannot write this way. Even if you are writing an memoir, of sorts. The use of initialisms without explanation of what they stand for was particularly grating.

“If states have went through the trouble of putting grooves on the side of the road to rouse drowsy drivers, I feel it would be a disservice to human ingenuity not to use them…” (Locations 329-330).

In the above example the reviewer is unable to grasp the authors attempt at humor.  The quoted portion above is in reference to me driving tired on a trip in Florida.  I mentioned it was necessary for me to stop for rest because the duration between being awoken by the sound the tires make on the side of the road when I was driving was about 15 minutes apart.  I joked about the dangerous driving habit in the above quotation.  The word states is easily understood as referring to US states who are responsible for maintaining their highways, including the ribs on the road that alert a driver he or she is partially on the shoulder.  As has been the case in every example, the reviewer has isolated the quoted portion from its full context, changing the context in an effort to support her poorly thought out criticism.

Further the tone of the book was inconsistent, almost as if two very different people contributed to it. One is informal and messy, the other is research based and more lucid, if not still wrong in a number of it’s assertions. Straight out the gate, my back was up because the tone of the book is aggressive, demanding, demeaning and self-righteous. It’s a good rule of thumb not to berate your audience when you are trying to make them “think critically” about some very importance socio-economic issues.

In review of a book, if there are “a number of it’s assertions which are wrong”, you present an evidence based argument for why they are wrong, instead of half making the assertion so you can further convince an already deceived audience the book is factually incorrect.  I stated half assert because she qualifies the sentence with “if not still”, which causes the sentence to mean maybe it is wrong and maybe it isn’t.  In this, she doesn’t have to respond to criticism of not providing an example, but can still call the credibility of the book into question.

“You owe it to the world, you owe it to your children, you owe it to your countrymen, and you owe it to yourself to understand what a Center for Economic Planning is, to proliferate the concept, and to support me in the journey to realize them.” (Locations 124-126)

As usual, she isolates a sentence from its setting in an effort to demonstrate the book is demanding, but omits the circumstances that warrant the demand.  Discussed in this portion of the book was the imposition of the United States, western Europe and it’s allies a on the rest of the world, and the consequences of that imposition, including global poverty related death, living in extreme poverty, bombing, invasions, coups, etc.  Indifference and willful ignorance allows foreign policy to proceed on a tyrannical course, that and the fact the government does not represent an interest that is without money behind it.  The only difference between the children in this country and the children who must endure the circumstances created by this country, is one was born in the land of the oppressor, and one born in the lands of the oppressed.  If the circumstances that exist you would not have your own children in, then these are circumstances that are not good enough for any child.  Because it is the policies of this nation that direct and maintain the world order, and the citizens of this country are part of this country, it is incumbent upon them to prevent the perpetration of tyranny in their name, as they would not want to live under such circumstances.

If the opportunities for the children of the comfort and even semi comfort classes were what they are for the bottom half of wealth holders, they would hope for more opportunities, an increase in the quality of the opportunities available, and the ability to have their interest represented in government, although even among the comfort and semi-comfort classes, representation of their own interest does not occur.  In this, how do they not owe it to their countrymen in as much as they wouldn’t prefer such disadvantages, and to themselves to support their own interest?

Finally I mentioned the likelihood of the premature extinction of the species within the next century or so, something everyone owes to their children, grandchildren, and humanity itself.

What other tone does one take on serious matters requiring immediate attention other than a demanding tone?  Humanity will survive and thrive, or cease to exist on this planet, based on the actions of the generations alive today.

“There are only two ways I could commit to a woman: A: if she had money to finance my ideas, and B: if she could be a critical asset in helping me fulfill my ambition. But I do not love, love is primarily an immature longing for security. I am mature beyond the need for such security, which isn’t to say I don’t still require human contact, touch, sexually and non-sexually, as well as other aspects of personal interaction with a woman.” (Locations 1774-1777)

“I served her D on the air mattress she set up in the back of the SUV.” (Locations 1784-1785)

The above portion seems as if it is further evidence of my narcissism, but part of the quoted is dialogue, and the other portion is a reflection of the dialogue that took place while I was on a job, a conversation concerning females and relationships.

I understand that everything a human being interprets, he or she interprets with value, no exception.  Love occurs when the value of someone’s behavior to someone else, is so high, the individual wants to possess the other, attaches to the other.  When the other is as enamored with the one as he or she is with the other, the two are in love.  Many times, one is in love and not the other, and sometimes one is in love not based off of actual behavior, but the memories of the behavior, or the idea that the individual could develop the preferred behavior.

People are born conditioned into the idea that what they need is love, when, if  they had liberty, they could do without it, mainly because it isn’t real.  Most people that require the attachment are searching for someone to be a piece in the puzzle of their implanted fantasy.  The life they were read stories about, the life they see in the movies, in advertising, or listen to on the radio.  In fact the longing for someone to have someone to behave as you prefer them to behave is usually a longing for security, and weaknesses not shed.

Everything human beings perceive has value and all things of value can be exchanged.  My greatest value is liberty, and I feel the freest when I am making progress in purpose, for the purpose of liberty.  In this, what I am saying is quite logical: the only way I would make myself less free through commitment, is if it would cause me to be freer through purpose.

Love isn’t real, only an exchange made between free people, and when the value of behavior changes, or the behavior itself changes, the attachment fades.

Again, isolated from its context it would appear as if the author included this passage as an advertisement, or someone who has an inflated sense of his desirability, when in fact, the quote comes from a discussion at work.

I simply mentioned my criteria for commitment, a woman who could fund my ambition or who has skills and interest in the accomplishment of goals.  Otherwise I’m a good time not a love life: drinks, conversation, laughter, and smashing.

Not sure how to respond to “I served her D on the air mattress she set up in the back of an SUV”.  I did that, not sure where the problem is.  Here the reviewer isolates the quote in an effort to make the author appear non-descriptive and childish.  What is omitted, are the details included in the book, the deflation of the mattress, the pain in my knees causing me to have to rock that shit from the bottom, the fact it wasn’t her vehicle, it was her alleged ex-boyfriend’s Suburban.  The ex-descriptive was probably inaccurate, but I don’t have an issue with that.

Other than a brief explanation of what a Center for Economic Planning is meant to be, there is no real practical information about how a town, city, county or state would be able to get this sort of initiative off the ground. The content/narrative spent more time pointing out what was wrong with the current system of governance and the issues with American democracy (including corporate greed, money and corruption) than plotting a way forward for the every-man, which is what the author claims he wants to do. The personal stories had very little to do with this narrative either. To be fair, the author did say that the title “may feel a little off”, and it really does because the book becomes a disjointed mess of seemingly random thoughts.

As referenced in the book, details are available at my website orioncs.net.  The Way: Centers for Economic Planning will be finished this fall or sooner, but this book is not about any particular project, it is about a year in my life as described through the title.

The narrative is in the background, it loosely exists in as much as where I was at and events taking place, but more importantly, thoughts I had and what caused those thoughts.  It isn’t a novel that tells a story in the sense that there is a plot that builds and culminates, it consists of well thought out interpretations of everyday life, fact and logic based arguments, concerning the reality that is, and the reality that is perceived.  In many instances, it is challenging what good is perceived to be, and what good is through the measure of liberty, and liberty is true.

The Review

This really shouldn’t be a book. A blog, sure. A diary, sure. Not a book. I respect the author’s right to his perspectives and opinions, I just don’t think that they are refined enough to be published. I think that in addition to some actual critical thinking, a wider net of social experience and maybe a few writing courses, could make this an interesting read.

I find it hard to believe the reviewer is of the capacity to judge positions as being unrefined, when she clearly demonstrates the inability to understand the concepts, evidence of which is forthcoming as we proceed in the review of the review.  There are very few opinions in the book, but this assertion stems from the reviewer being unable to distinguish an argument or interpretation built of facts, (which must be challenged either by exposing a hole in reasoning, or challenging the facts themselves, or a perspective or opinion) from an opinion.  Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a paragraph of assertions, we would have an example and a counter argument.  Instead she claims I have opinions, making it subjective, and leaving no structure for debate and conclusion.

I must apologize for taking so long to review this book. I needed about 4 days to formulate what I wanted to say, and how best to say it. As it currently exists, the material angers me. The lack of writing skill coupled with the author’s bizarre over inflated sense of self and importance angers me, the lack of understanding surrounding profound social issues angers me, and the author’s need to qualify that his version of “broke” means that he really is broke, “unlike some people”, angers me. The author’s intrinsic misunderstanding of capitalism, socialism, communism, nationalism and democracy angers me the most. No wonder people keep deleting his comments on their Facebook posts (as mentioned in the book). This book reeks of typical social justice keyboard warrior bullshit, where he doesn’t just have the wrong end of the stick – he has the wrong stick entirely.

People are often angered by what they do not understand.  Her interpretation of my writing skills is her own subjective opinion.  I have already explained my style of writing, but in addition to the previously mentioned, the value of the written word is to convey an idea.  If all the information is arranged within the sentences in a way that conveys that idea, then grammatical errors and lacking rhetorical value is of little significance to the author.  But this is her opinion, not an argument.

She asserts “I have an intrinsic misunderstanding of capitalism, socialism, communism, nationalism, and democracy”, but fails to produce a single example of this misunderstanding, or what that misunderstanding is.

The practical economic spectrum consists of capitalism and socialism.  Capitalism allows for individual control of the means of production, a decision made by those who have money, which can be converted into all forms of capital and can be capital itself.  Socialism allows for collective control of the means of production, democratic control as control cannot be exercised collectively without the representation of the popular interest.  Every other economic system is merely some variation of degree of capitalism or socialism, with some being for an un-wanted and impractical distribution system instead of a market.

Democracy in its truest sense is the realization of the majority interest.  The word democracy is presently used to describe quasi-republics where citizens can decide who will be elected after the candidates have been chosen by wealth and industry.

Nationalism is a national bias and interest in independence.

Comments are deleted because the words themselves destroy the flimsy, regurgitated point someone was trying to make, and so they delete being unable to respond.  As far as the keyboard warrior comment is concerned, it implies that I do nothing but sit around and troll websites, when in fact I am rarely on the internet participating forums.  The reviewer knows this to be untrue based on the fact long sessions of fierce internet debates are absent from the book.  I did use facebook.  I posted statuses of thoughts I had about what I experienced.  I also replied to posts that interested me.

He talks about complacency and the tacit agreement of those who do nothing, and how it is wrong not to act but then says that leftists should not have counter-protested at Charlottesville because they allowed a larger spotlight to focus on the “alt-right” thus causing greater harm through provoked altercation. And I won’t even touch his shallow, cock-eyed understanding of why people want the statue removed. Yet, he fails to understand that what is currently happening in the U.S. surrounding protest and counter protest is a direct result of people no longer willing to be complacent about the social, gender, economic and moral decisions being made by those in power, who don’t care about their constituents. This is why kids, fucking children, as protesting for gun regulation; why women took to the streets en masse to tell Trump and his ilk that no-one should have the right to regulate a woman’s body but herself.  

The willingness to hold a sign with your friends and repeat meaningless slogans against whatever the trending issue is, is not the same as understanding actual problems and working towards a plan that can address these problems.

She says I was against the counter-protest because it provided the alt-right with greater attention.  This was a supplemental point, not one of the main points against the counter-protesters.  The main point was there motivation.  1st, because the counter-protesters have participated in other protests, which have achieved nothing meaningful, they know protesting is ineffective.  Meaning they can foresee that the alt-right protesters are not going to cause the city to reverse its decision regarding the statues removal.  They are not going there to protest because they feel their presence will lead to the statues removal, which they are for, because they know this is going to happen either way.

They are going there for one of two reasons.  A: It is seen by a strategist as something that can be mentioned as an accomplishment for the participating members and group.  Without the violence, most in a year or less don’t know anything about the alt-right protest to keep the statue.  The group can include in their exaggerated and often fabricated list of achievements that they protested for the removal of the statue and the statue was removed. B: The most likely reason is they went to intimidate with possibility of physically confronting the alt-right demonstrators.

My point was they had no good reason to be there.

She claims I fail to understand what is going on in the US surrounding protests, but the truth is I understand all too well.  First protesting is ineffective.  No amount of protesting has stopped the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The occupy protests have accomplished nothing in terms of improving people’s lives through financial empowerment other than a few non-profits whose small contributions are missed by most.  The exaggerated figures for protests against the 2003 Iraq invasion were 500,000 nationwide, and still the US invaded and killed over a million people.  BLM protests continue, because despite all previous protest efforts, people are still the victims of the unnecessary use of force by law enforcement.  Something I have a solution for in a publication available on Amazon called Poor Lives Matter.

Her example and fake anger of “kids, fucking children” protesting is perhaps the best example of someone who “not only has the wrong end of the stick, but the wrong stick entirely.” The cause is dissatisfaction stemming from a variety of factors, the symptom is mass murder, and the means vary. Children and people in general are not any safer through gun laws. We could cite the homicide rate of nations with strict gun laws where homicide rates are greater than in the United States, or we could look at gun violence itself in the United States and see there is no correlation between stricter gun laws and lowering the incidents of gun violence. Chicago, IL is a good example, ranked 8th by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

A better example is Canada and a recent Canadian incident of mass murder.  The point was made in an article I read that every gun used in mass shootings in the United States is a gun that could be purchased legally in Canada, yet Canada does not have the frequent mass shootings that occur in the United States.  To avoid being disingenuous, the article goes on to compare the likelihood of specific incidents of mass murder occurring in Canada, with some being not likely but still possible.  This undermines the already preposterous notion, that the availability of guns cause mass murder.  This is what you are saying when an incident of mass murder takes place and you are calling for stricter gun laws as the solution.

About a week ago, a man in Toronto, killed 10 and injured 15 others with a van rented by Ryder.  I haven’t heard about protests yet, but this could be because activists cannot decide if the van, or Ryder renting the man the van is responsible for the act.

…there was this wonderful gem in the book:

“For an individual who is disadvantaged, without the means to create his own opportunity, I don’t see anything morally wrong with him or her robbing someone who is in a significantly greater position than him or her, and who is also indifferent to the circumstances, or better said the barriers that exist for the underclasses. (Locations 249-251).

On the face of it, many people wouldn’t necessarily see a problem with this mindset. And here is my opinion: You should be morally averse to anyone being robbed… And the idiotic statement above means that this author is saying that he isn’t morally averse to me or my home being robbed because the assumption would be that I am better off and thus the more disadvantaged are somehow entitled to the meager life that I have etched out for myself.

Someone who isn’t morally averse to robbery can’t be that averse to rape or sexual assault either when you consider than they really boil down to seizing power and removing agency because of perceived entitlement. It’s about taking what isn’t yours and not giving a damn about the damage left behind. Think before you write. And what’s more, this isn’t Sherwood Forest and you aren’t Robert of Loxley.

She isolates a quote from the supporting explanation concerning robbery. I explain the legal parallels of robbery occurring daily, but more than this, she demonstrates her poor comprehension skills by contradicting the quote. She writes that I wouldn’t be opposed to her being robbed, but she describes her livelihood as meager, and even the quote in isolation qualifies an act of balance as requiring a significant advantage and indifference to the interest of the underclasses.

Of course, in the section of the book entitled Criminality as a Form of Resistance, I wrote the following: “Between people, rarely if ever is it (robbery) justifiable, since for example, if a person without any means of income robs a person in the middle making about 45k per year the advantage is not significant and chances are the target works for their money…in general the four things to consider are harm, balance, lasting effect, and how what is to be taken is acquired.”

The reviewer claims she read the book and understands it, yet attempts to make points against it that contradict the content.  The reviewer is against robbery for subjective reasons, which means her argument is not morally motivated but personally motivated.  She is against robbery because she does not want to be robbed, and believes she will never be in a position where she needs to rob someone.  The same as someone would be against cutting social spending because they don’t believe they, or anyone they know will ever need it.

She asserts that someone who condones robbery also condones rape, but fails to explain the correlation. Robbery is an issue of balance, of liberty, where much to do with one’s liberty depends on how much money they have, and where an individual’s ability to make money is determined by how much money they have. Rape is a boundary issue, also of liberty, where the boundaries of one are imposed upon, unprovoked, by another. I’m for the respect of boundaries and progress towards balance, which means I am sometimes for robbery, but I am always against rape.

Mostly, my greatest issue with this book is that the author is pandering to his ego. No-one will listen to him on Facebook or in person, so he’s written a book to finish all the things that he wanted to say, regardless of how idiotic some of it may be.

Facebook is not a forum where I am too disappointed in no-one listening.  This is my third book, differing from the others in that it was personal as opposed to being technical

Many of the stories start with something akin to “what I wasn’t able to say was”.

Most of what was written were not “things I wanted to say” but a chronicle of things said, with maybe two stories that consisted of thoughts unexpressed.

I mentioned the reasons in two incidents.  The one being a person who was in a position to not allow me to return for work which I needed to maintain the income opportunity.  In this, had I made my points, the recipient would not have been any more enlightened at the conclusion than he would have been had I not expressed them.  What purpose would it have served?  The reason I mentioned what he said in the book, is because these are popular positions that are wrong.

The second, was an incident on a bus, where I was continually interrupted and unable to finish a point.  I became frustrated and the person I was talking with got off the bus.

The reviewer, and this is not much of stretch, may be unable distinguish between what I wasn’t able to say, and reflections, what I thought about afterwards.

And at no point did I really learn about or gain interest in “low risk, easily implemented, revolutionary ideas”.

Centers for Economic Planning, the Criteria for Deadly Force and Enforcement are both mentioned, and a website address is provided for those who were interested.  She should have wrote that she doesn’t have an interest in low risk easily implemented, revolutionary ideas, because had she, she would have went to the website.

I have absolutely no inclination to read anything else by this author. All I saw was the kinda guy, likely: pushing forty, who can’t seem to hold a steady job but says that this is because he doesn’t want to be part of “the system” so he uses his “hustle” to make cash, uses the phrase “this dick” (when referring to his dick) far too often, who smokes weed near constantly, but probably doesn’t pay child support. Being socially responsible starts at home.

I’ve had a steady job for about the last three to four years, establishing truth, developing and promoting ideas that if understood and realized would avert the premature extinction and achieve the liberation of the species.  Not very lucrative, but I have been consistent in the endeavor.

Prior to, I operated a moderately successful resale business for years, which I abandon to pursue a greater purpose.  I did not say that I don’t have a steady job because I don’t want to be part of “the system”, although I may have alluded to it as supplementary point, but in terms of my productive efforts not increasing the power of the state, which is the facilitator of wealth and industry.  I did say that I am not content working a 9 to 5 job where my talents are wasted while understanding the world I live in, and the species I am a part of is dysfunctional.  To understand reality while simultaneously being aware of the reality that is the product of popular perception, and popular perception is engineered or manufactured, (depending if you prefer the original from Bernays, or the modification expressing the same sentiment by Lippmann and made famous by Chomsky) is situation where I either pretend perception is correct or demonstrate that it isn’t.

More than this is the situations I encounter involving my employment, where games emerge, people are privy to information they should not know, and have access to information that I don’t know how they obtain.  To express details as mentioned in the book is to expose oneself to unneeded and opinion based criticism that I am unable to confront because I have no witnesses.

What is the appropriate amount of times to use a phrase in reference to your dick?  I missed that article, is there like a federally recommended amount?  The unfortunate thing about it is “this dick” was given to me by a friend, who made a joke using the phrase.  I am talking about sexual experiences or the potential for them.  Furthermore, I don’t think the reviewer has enough knowledge of this dick, having never experienced this dick, to be the judge of the importance of this dick, and how often the phrase this dick is appropriate to be used.  It’s a petty criticism, because she had no points made, I thought I would make that one for her. Your welcome.

I do pay child support, which isn’t to say there hasn’t been gaps, but I contribute.  More speculation in the continuation of a non-substantive attempt to portray the author in a negative light.

I do not smoke weed near constantly and I smoke it primarily for medicinal purposes to manage stress and anxiety, but even if I had, what does that have to do with the book you so scarcely reviewed?  I spend 15 to 20 dollars per week, sometimes every two weeks on marijuana or marijuana derived products.  Not exactly a pot head, or the flannel wearing stoner you would like to portray me as.

I have a lot more to say but I feel that I have covered enough in this review. I will, however, leave you with this passing thought:

“This guy will be so thrilled when cloning is invented so he can finally fuck himself, in front of an audience of himself.”

In true Tropical Mary fashion, she finishes with something she thinks is witty and clever, but is pointless and unilluminating.