Oh, Yeah? Prove it!

Every experiment has significance, even the inconclusive ones.  When a team of smartguys at M.I.T. completes a study with inconclusive results, it reaches the ineluctable conclusion that another study is needed and immediately sets to work on it.  This testing can, will, and does continue until significant findings have been produced — er, that is — discovered.

Once significant results appear, the doctors conducting the study become proponents of it and publish these discoveries in remarkably well-respected journals.  These paperback journals are written in tedious, turgid English that is too obscure for the public to read, and have an average cover price of thirty American dollars, ensuring that the general populace gets no chance to join the conversation until it is Mickey Moused by Time Magazine and sold as an impulse buy at the grocery counter.

Hey, whatever.  At least mom’s getting in some string theory.

Journals cost upwards of thirty bucks, but at least they're jam-packed with ten-dollar words

As in all things in this universe, the idea proposed in this new study begets its equal and opposite, a second study which exists to provide an alternate scientific belief for anyone and anything negatively implicated in the first.

The satisfying thing about science is that it loves conflict.

Scientific prejudices appear out of this conflict, and because they are prejudices of science itself, the public presumes them factual.   From the broadest perspective, however, science walks in the well-trod footpaths of religion and theosophy.

When science decides that a certain quantum particle does not exist based on its failure to appear in tests, science is as faith-based as the creation myth of Genesis.  Science and religion have traditionally been rancorous archenemies, but this is a misunderstanding which, if one could get them talking again, could easily fertilize the most affectionate of friendships.

This animosity has been based on little more than a clerical error, anyhow.  Note how science and religion interplay in the following.

Once upon a time, in a faraway land called Berkeley, there lived a doctor of physics.  This doctor believed in a certain particle he called the God Particle, and hypothesized that it existed everywhere and had an effect on everything else.  So the doctor wrote a paper and was granted funding to perform experiments in a very special place with very special equipment, and after three months of rigorous, painstaking trials, the poor doctor was forced to concede that no evidence of his God Particle had surfaced in any tests at all.

To the scientific community, this absence of evidence presents hard, objective proof that Doc’s God Particle does not exist.  Even if they add the word “theoretically” to the conclusion (as they do with the theory of gravity, which they still can’t fucking figure out) they still use the test as a quotable citation in papers arguing that the particle is a fantasy of the doctor’s.

To be perfectly clear: in popular science, the absence of evidence can prove that a thing does not exist.

How’s that for self-satisfied conceit?  They can’t even plumb the depths of our ocean trenches, but they’ve got E.S.P., telekinesis, astral projection, sixth senses, prescient dreams, and automatic writing all figured out.  How?  No evidence, that’s how.

Oh.  Well, shit.

Scientific evidence shows that there is no scientific evidence that scientific evidence is scientifically evident

Now, let’s say that following the most costly failure of his professional career, Doc is forced to return to teaching at a preparatory high school for rich kids, which amazingly enough also happens to inculcate Catholicism.  In this private school, Doc is lecturing about the existence of God during a religious studies class, when suddenly a particularly cynical and sarcastic student raises her hand and demands to know how it is that anyone can feel sure that God (big G) exists at all.

Well, this is the question for which the course entire exists, and so the doctor puffs up with dignity and conviction, and with great certainty informs his students that in all the centuries and centuries of assiduous scientific research, and of all the brilliant, most well-respected minds throughout history, not a single person has been able to prove that God does not exist.

To elucidate: in matters of religion, the absence of evidence to the contrary can prove that a thing does exist.

— And though science and religion may fixate on the same piece of evidence (that nothing has appeared in tests, in this case) they both exit these experiments feeling assured that their hypotheses have been logically supported, because objective reason has its roots in language, and language happens to have more than enough elasticity to correctly describe a single concept with two definitions, each the perfect opposite of the other.

As violent and arbitrary as this arrangement may seem, the truth is: the common person likes it fine.  In fact, practically everyone hates unchallenged assertions, even the people making the assertions, themselves.  Something about our nature causes us to see polar opposites in everything, and something about our minds causes us to invent contrary concepts for every conceivable idea.

Humanity likes nothing until it is contested, enjoys nothing better than a contest

It is this facet of the human personality which affords us such colorful figures as the venerable Flat Earth Society, which still maintains that the globe is flat; the irreproachable Tychonian Society, which avers that the sun orbits the earth; and one mad Dutchman at the University of Amsterdam, Erik Verlinde, who asseverates that gravity is, in fact, fictitious.

If the ever-patient and magnanimous reader finds the Flat Earth Society amusing, then the reader is hereby urged to consider that most contemporary physicists believe Dr. Verlinde’s theory to have very convincing implications, and that gravity is merely the effect of a universe maximizing its entropy, or disorder.  The concept of gravity as a universal power will probably not exist for our children.

Q: If gravity, of all things, really is a red herring, then how incredible and fantastic are groups like the Flat Earthers and Tychonians, really?

A: Every bit as credible as a science journal, just as veracious as a leading theoretician, and equally as trustworthy as the supposed date and time of the reader’s birth.

Lo, and behold the clerical error of which I spake: if science and religion could leave the protection of their podiums for a second, they might each glean a mutual respect for the irascible plight of the other, which is that they are both sadly, obviously, and pathetically full of shit.  Not one or the other.  Both.

Yes indeed, we like the results of our experiments best when they are disputed.  Should science publish a study which shows conclusive evidence on any topic at all, another science immediately sets out to prove the opposite.  The people of the world want every perspective sullied and watered-down, pushed and contested until a ninety-nine percent probability has its back against the fifty-fifty wall, precisely where we want it.

We want it balanced just so, because we like to choose sides as if they were baseball teams.

— And once we arbitrarily pick a team, we commence to argue, and bitch, and dispute for it as though our evidence were, after all, indisputable.

Even incontrovertible evidence meets with reasonable opposition

Evidence is stupid, anyhow.  It’s usually statistical, which as anyone can tell you is the most insidious form of prevarication.  For some reason, intelligent people appeal to the authority of statistics all the time and require the same of others, which is doubly asinine, as these egghead hotshots know full-well that appealing to any authority is a cardinal logical fallacy, and exponentially more so when the authority in question is an invariably inaccurate numeric representation of an actual, physical chain of events, collected from a sample base which even under the most fastidious methods has no chance whatever of accurately representing some other, similar yet different thing at an entirely different point in time.

As the British statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, once said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Most experiments require a test group and a control group, too, but like gravity and statistics, there’s no such thing as a dependable control group, either. The very act of including it in a study changes its natural state.

An excellent example of this occurs in quantum mechanics, in which certain particles exist only in patterns of probability — that is to say, they are probably there, or probably not-there, never certainly so — and these patterns of probability change according to which researcher happens to be recording the data.

If one supposes that fifty scientists conduct the same study, their findings will generally have an acceptable margin of error, each doctor achieving his or her own individual result.  The only difference between this margin and a larger one is that we declare the former admissible and the latter inadmissible. Experiments cannot gauge truth in objective reality any more than a preacher can divulge so-called Ultimate Truth (big U, big T) from a holy text.

Humanity finds evidence-for, and evidence-against, and ultimately judges its (supposedly) objective reality with the subjective whimsy of an adolescent girl deciding between prom dresses.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the world calls evaluation by evidence.

Weighing all evidence with the most discerning of eyes, the prom date is an apotheosis of adjudication

So all evidence is meaningless, then? All results, experiments, and hypotheses, nothing but evaporated time and energy?

Not at all. Just because there’s no such thing as True (big T) objectivity doesn’t mean one can’t create it for oneself or support it for others. We arrive at many, many decisions on a regular basis which matter to hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, and we put our faith in evidences in order to do so.  Truth is easy to arrive at in a box.

One has merely to define the box.

Contrary to an extremely annoying popular belief, though, there is no such thing as thinking outside the box, because from the broadest perspective nothing makes any sense.  Logic only happens within defined parameters.  One can exit one set of rules and enter another, more comprehensive set, but there’s always another box containing all the smaller sets to prove that they are infinitely short-sighted and presumptuous.

The important thing is to remember that we’re basing it all on faith.  Nobody knows what’s really going on.  The passionate stupidity of thousands of sheep in innumerable American religious flocks has allowed science license for abject arrogance.  The truth is, though, any honest scientist will tell you that science has no positive idea about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

That’s the slippery thing about Ultimate Truth (big U, big T).  It’s only true if it does not conflict with the properties of the universe — and the universe is in constant flux.  In fact, the only known absolute constant is the transitory nature of everything.  This means that even should an Ultimate Truth surface, it could only be ultimately true for an instant before becoming outmoded to newer, emergent properties of existence.

Mr. Jesus may very well have been the way, truth, and life once (or maybe is due up in a few more centuries) but neither he nor anybody nor anything else can be a static ultimate truth in an anti-static reality.  A more likely solution is that universal truth changes for each individual thinker, so that one’s universal truth may indeed be found in Biblical scripture at a certain age — and this is boxed-up objective truth, no less true than death or taxes — but neither before nor afterward.

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (I Cor. 13:11).

Yeah, that’s right.  I can quote scripture.  It isn’t blasphemy when it’s true.

So perhaps we all have some real thinking to do, eh?  Perhaps it’s time to grow up.

Where does one stow an outgrown worldview?  Under the bed, next to the Tinker Toys and Legos, obviously.  Right where it belongs.

With glasnost and much cheek I remain,

Yours Truly,


P.S. — Nowhere in this piece will the magnanimous reader find the word, “ontology.”

Stumble It!


  1. Bravo!

    I believe truth is in a constant state of flux, and truth is different for everyone. Maybe truth would be better understood if one spent more time trying to understand ones changing truths rather than spending all one’s time trying to change the truths of others.

    • Dear Rebecca,

      What an inspiring, optimistic thought: nations of people considering the implications of their various truths in all their pluralistic splendor.

      I spend much of my time in “In a Real World…” trying to explain the nature of duality, pluralism, flux, contradiction and paradox in our lives, and I consider it time very well spent, indeed. Nobody’s going to get along with anyone else on planet Earth until humankind rescinds its love affair with linearity.

      How does one politely say such things to people, though? I don’t suppose I’m a terribly caustic man, but I feel certain that the only people who make it to the signature at bottom are people who understand most of this nonsense, anyhow. At the very least, I get very, very few detractors, so I have evidence (wink) that they aren’t making it past the first few alien ideas which annoy their sensibilities.

      Ah, well. At least we have our truths, Miss.

      The irony, of course, is that our truths, yours and mine particularly, don’t appear to have any immediate inconsistencies. Isn’t that the way? It’s so inconvenient, much like how the warmongers have all the guns, and the peaceniks have all the olive branches. Well, that’s rather redundant.

      Thank you for stopping in, Miss! Nice to have you around.

      Yours Truly,


      • Jesus, or a kindergarten teacher, would say lead by example, although I’m not sure “leading” is necessary or even desirable. If it is human nature to pick sides, and if it is human nature which forces the study of opposite views, ideals, and results, then it is human nature which affords us the myriad philosophies available for any individual’s subscription. I, for one, enjoy variety; a grocer with only bananas for sale would soon loose my patronship. A world where everyone knew truth to be subjective at best (the philosophy you have described here and the one I subscribe to) would be a bland existence, indeed.

      • Dear L.L.,

        Of course, I agree with you.

        The very interesting possibility is that it is not human nature which forces the study of opposing ideas. Chaos and complexity studies show entropy and order working parallel to one another in tandem. They don’t work against one another. They happen at the same time to all things, apparently. If this is occurring in a system which includes humanity, I don’t see how humans could escape it.

        What would it lead to, concerning our conversation? It would lead to splitting-up, or increasing complexity, but it would also lead to that fifty-fifty balance I wrote about. Chaos and order, living together in — harmony? Egad. Ridiculous. Seemingly so, though.

        Love hearing from you.

        Yours Truly,


        P.S. — ah, I realize that it may be human nature in the sense that humanity is part of nature, bytheway, if that was what you meant.

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bertromavich Reibold, Robert P Reibold. Robert P Reibold said: Oh, Yeah? Prove it! « In a Real World, This Would Be Happening: Even if they add the word “theoretically” to the c… http://bit.ly/cfmirE […]

  3. nicely done!!!!… a very good digest of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    really enjoyed the last one too…. all of them thus far in fact.

    • Dear Mr. Jacques,

      How nice to see you here! And how nice to get such high marks from a well-read fellow like yourself.

      You know, ha ha, you’ve bested me with Thomas Kuhn. Not only have I no experience with his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but I’ve actually never heard the name, before. Is he worth reading? What’s his writing style like? More Wittgenstein than Bertrand Russell? I hope not. I’ve been doing some heavy lifting of late, and I’m searching hard for thought-provoking reads with a smooth, casual flow to glide me into summer.

      I’m very, very pleased that you’ve enjoyed all the “In a Real World…” you’ve read. I know one day someone’s going to say, “Both, that last piece wasn’t any good,” and it’s going to be a tough afternoon, ha ha — but that will be then and this is now. Thanks for the compliments.

      Time to visit Long Beach, bytheway.

      Yours Truly,


      • Dear Both,

        Thomas Kuhn is eminently well-worth reading, and I find myself citing him on my blog with some regularity, although it was not my intent to blog about the philosophy of science. But, really, one needs to be conversant with Kuhn to be well-informed about the contemporary state of things intellectual.

        Kuhn’s style is nothing like Wittgenstein, and also not the jocular informality of Bertrand Russell. But he isn’t a difficult read, and you could well add him to your beach reading list this summer. You can get many of his earlier ideas and the responses to them if you read The Road Since Structure.

        Best wishes,


  4. Gentle-sir,

    Once again, you have given us an amusing skip through the magical tulip bulbs of maya, enjoying the fresh scent of well-written prose, offering a full bouquet of contrary ideas of reality to consider. . .


    That said, however, may I offer for your consideration the absolute necessity of being fully aware of the particulars of others’ illusions and the Truth that their illusion may require them to kill you for not sharing their illusions? That, although you and I may agree we can never know precisely what “is” is, our agnosticism will not stop a terrorist bomb from ending our existence in this reality as long as some particular subatomic particles have decided to align themselves to create the emergent properties of Uranium-232?

    I am reminded of a passage from The Hitchhikers Guide the Galaxy, wherein Arthur learns that the Babblefish is the final proof for the non-existence of God. The argument goes:

    “I refuse to prove that I exist,” God says. “Because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.”

    “But,” man says. “The Babblefish is a dead giveaway because it’s impossible that any creature so fantastically useful could have possibly evolved by chance! So, by your own argument, you don’t exist!”

    “Oh, I never thought of that,” says God, and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

    All well and good. But Adams goes on to say:

    Meanwhile, man convinces himself that black is white, red is green and promptly gets himself KILLED at the next intersection.

    Never forget, my friend, It’s not NICE to deny the illusion called reality. Reality is a BITCH.

    Much love,

    Tom K.

    • Dear Tom,

      Oh, boo. That’s just not any fun at all.

      Of course you’re right. For all my brusque blustering, it doesn’t take a rhetorician to see that I navigate between words which might offend believers of various realities. Oh sure, once I’ve decided upon the most-probable argument from my perspective, I swing with both hands, but also while taking great care not to unfairly indict any opposition.

      This is a subtle respect that I am talking about, delivered in a subtler diction. For instance, when I refer to the “passionate stupidity of thousands of sheep in innumerable American religious flocks,” I had originally attributed said stupidity to the innumerable flocks, themselves, but this said far too much. I also use an honest measure of vulgarities to ensure that closed-minded zealots such as your suicide bomber never read far enough to get the full brunt of my meaning.

      So, yeah, I have to respect the existence of contrary realities. And cops.

      If I’m going to preach to anyone but the choir, I have to ensure that any given interloper can wander in here and read with an open mind — without being called an asshole. Christians need to be able to read the quoted portion and tell themselves, “Ah, yes, I’m certainly not one of the thousands of stupid sheep, but I know the kinds of Christians he’s talking about,” and atheists, likewise, need to be able to say, “Yes, all the flocks are stupid, and there are thousands of them.”

      There are literally scores of such navigations in each of my pieces. They’re a shameful necessity, really, but what the hell. I do preach to choirs much of the time, anyhow, and regardless, I’m not going to pull my best punches to protect the precious little realities of the self-deluded. What the fuck would I be doing here, then? Nothin’.

      Always so excellent to see you around, Tom. Thanks for the compliments and the interesting conversation (and thanks also for, “an amusing skip through the magical tulip bulbs of Maya,” by far the coolest description of my work that I’ve ever received, ha ha).

      Yours Truly,


      P.S. — the Wiki on the Hindu concept of Maya is excellent, should you (or anyone else) be interested.

      • Both,

        Glad you liked the metaphor. As always, a thoughtful reply to a thoughtful comment to a thoughtful, and thought-provoking, post!

        Years ago I read something by Kuhn, but I can’t remember what. It was a big-ass book, though. I do remember that.

        Have you ever seen the movie read the book, “Altered States”? Paddy Chavesky of “Network” fame wrote both. In fact, the book came after the movie. The book was a pretty easy read. An interesting trip. Didn’t do well at the box office but I’ve always thought if I were ever to be a teacher in a Christian college (huh?) I would make that movie required viewing.

        Tom Kaye

  5. sure are a lot of absolute sounding statements and conclusions from what appears to be a large group of people who deny there is absolute truth.


    • Dear Paul or Jen,

      I can’t tell you how long I’ve been waiting for someone to say that! It’s an obvious flaw in a linear progression of logic. Luckily, however, we do not seem to exist in a linear progression.

      Is it absolutely true, that there is no absolute truth?

      Yes, it is; therefore the answer to the question is no.

      Enjoy your spasms.

      Yours Truly,


      • see now, THIS is what I love about the blogosphere. I’ve been here before, liked what I read, stumbled back upon you guys today and read this post and so I dropped, what I would consider, a somewhat potentially provocative comment. And you respond with good ole fashion honesty and humor!

        You guys might just be the last group of humans out there that perhaps I may disagree with about 90% on, and still have a civil conversation with! lol…ok, maybe I’m overstating.

        but still – thanks! Refreshing to not get some atomic blast back for my little comment.

        saw a comment over on my Allthyngs page too! Thanks for swinging by and shooting me some (very good!) thoughts to chew on!

        good evening to you,

      • Dear Paul,

        I’m absolutely delighted to hear you’re pleased. As you said, I’ve been to your page. You’re a gentleman and a scholar.

        It’s remarkable what quality people come here and speak. Extremely, extremely diverse. God, I love that.

        Cheers to you, Sir.

        Yours Truly,


    • Your comment reminds me of an exchange I had with a professor (biology) when I was a freshman in college. He boldly declared to the class, “There are no absolutes.” I said, “Absolutely?” His reply, of course, was, “Absolutely!” At the time I did not yet understand that all tenured college professors are horses asses – absolutely!

      The goal of my writing here is simply to point out that it is only in our musings that we can play with the idea of absolute skepticism, even as we sit around contemplating the lint in our navels. But let a person take one step outside the matrix of his mind and the absolute truth of what IS slaps him in the face!

      Referencing the above HHGG, confusing red with green will get you killed crossing the first intersection you come to. How’s that for absolute truth?

      My recovery from skepticism began the night I spent in a Bavarian castle and discovered the lecture notes on systematic theology of Professor Charles Finney, circa 1851,

      I cannot find the actual notes I read that night online, but here is a just one section from his lectures that rocked my muddled mind:


      1. We know our existence. This is not an inference; “Cogito ergo sum,” (I think, therefore I exist, Latin) is a mere sophism. If I am not directly aware of my existence, how do I know that I think; and from the consciousness of mere thought, what right have I to infer that I think, or that I exist at all. There is no premise from which this can be inferred. The mere consciousness of thought affords not the least evidence that I am the thinking substance, or that I exist. And why should I say, I think? The very language implies that I know that I am, in knowing that I think. The very conception of thinking includes the assumption that I am. In consciousness, then, I know my own existence.”

      For more, visit here: http://www.firesofrevival.com/flt/flt03.htm

      My experience upon discovering Professor Finney was precisely that of C.S. Lewis’ upon meeting his tutor, “the Great Knock”. “For me it was like Strong Beer and Red Beef. Here was talk that was really ABOUT something!” (Surprised by Joy 137)

      Ideas matter. Reality matters. It’s where we live.

      Tom Kaye

      • Dear Tom,

        I think that at this point (at your point) we must enter into semantics, and I’m not a fan of that, really, so I’ll reply as succinctly as possible, if you don’t mind.

        The traffic light example is a realist’s fine example of realism — but it’s not a traffic light unless we all agree to the same lie. If a supervirus wipes humanity from the earth like a giant squeegee over the next month, the light will immediately become the most bizarre-looking piece of landscape the roaches have ever seen. It can’t “be” a traffic light. There’s no traffic.

        Or better: the old “shave and-a hair-cut, two bits” jingle is an American comedy standard going back ninety years. Bugs Bunny said it all the time. We honk the first part, our friends honk the last part, and we drive away smiling and self-satisfied with our comedic collaboration. That’s our real reality, and it’s ultimate.

        However, honking your horn with “shave and-a hair-cut…” in Mexico City can get you shot. It means something entirely different. That’s ultimate reality, too, and the only difference is 2400 kilometers.

        Now, by the same logic used to prove ultimate reality, we find it conflicting with itself. What, then? There are different ultimate realities, or isn’t it ultimate? More Maya?

        God in heaven, if we start defining “ultimate” and “reality” now, I’m going to walk into the nearest crosswalk, wait for the light to turn green, and take a big shit right in the middle of the street.

        Even if it doesn’t succeed in inspiring any epiphanies, it’d sure amuse hell out of me.

        Good luck, gentlemen.

        Yours Truly,


      • Dear Readers of “Oh Yeah? Prove it!”:

        This appeared in the news this morning, and stands as a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance I describe in this piece.




  6. Haha I am literally the only comment to your amazing article!

    • Dear Miss Fuller,

      You may not have provided the only comment to my article, but you may have provided the best argument for its validity, ha ha. Either you’re my hero, or my first schizophrenic reader.

      Yours Truly,


  7. You’ve done it once more! Amazing writing.

    • Dear Miss Wong,

      You’ve done it again, too! Amazing spam. Almost anyone could be fooled.

      Yours Truly,


  8. Dear BothEyes,

    In my comments on the John of Jerusalem Prophecies, which you might have seen on my blog – I started them on 1st January and ended them 40 days later – I mention a few times that Science and Spirituality will eventually come together, in a common understanding of all that exists. Each of them is a pathway to absolute knowledge.

    Spirituality has been bogged down by Religion. Once the divisive dogmas disappear, Spirituality will be free to soar.

    Science has been bogged down by being misused for financial profit. Once we get over our obsession with money, Science will be free to pursue its true goal.

    Science and Spirituality are only in conflict now because they are still on two different roads, although they are both heading in the same direction. Once they each arrive at their destinations, they will be astounded to discover that they are at the same place, and in total agreement.

    So much time lost along the way!


    • Dear Miss Dennis,

      Of course I agree with what you’ve written. What I hadn’t considered before was the interesting parallel you draw between that particular brand of religion which you set apart from spirituality, and science’s obsession with cashola. Indeed, they have myriad similarities.

      Someone recently said (don’t remember who, sorry) that whatever science can’t explain at the moment becomes the “god factor.” I found that amusing at first, but then realized that it’s not really that funny, because it’s too natural a human reflex to be funny, too predictable. What is funny, though, is that this is equally true on the religious side: whatever religion can’t explain at the moment is the god factor.

      “Why did God see fit to make that tornado set my truck atop that there apartment buildin’? Now how’ma gonna get to work today?”

      “He works in mysterious ways.”

      Even though it’s written into the scenario for a believer to simply chuck god into anything, anytime, anywhere, it’s still pretty funny when one looks at it, especially for the sort of personality attributed to God (big G). If God’s really responsible for all the stuff believers think He’s responsible for, then my picture of him is somewhere between Bobcat Goldthwaite and Harpo Marx.

      Interesting comment, Miss. And good to see you!

      Yours Truly,


  9. Thank you for information that you post in this site, i have information about penis enlargement and vimax pills that really work for you. If you interesting in find this information you can read review about male enhancement at – http://www.male-sexual.com

    • Dear NaturalPenisEnlargementPills,

      And thank you, Sir or Madam, for providing such a needed service to my penificent readers. I can’t but imagine that orders are pouring in through the phallic floodgate that is “In a Real World, This Would Be Happening.”

      Whatever would we do without your elixirs of elongating?

      Yours Truly,


      P.S. — Do you identify yourself as a male-sexual? I am female-sexual, I think. Please clarify.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 24 other followers

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Local Directory for Long Beach, CA
  • Recent Readers

    View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile
  • Copyright Info.

    - All works are Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 by BothEyesShut

    "In a Real World, This Would Be Happening"

    All rights reserved.

    - Header concept, photography, and design by Ruben R. Martinez (www.RubenRMartinez.com)

  • Real Bloggers United