Sunta

I do feel that Howard exhibited many classic examples of abusive behavior, short of actually beating her. That may have come next, who knows? Keeping people from their family and friends, that's the #1 sign of abusive behavior starting. Even if Anna had some issue with her mom, Howard should have encouraged her to work it out and reconcile instead of attempting to cut her off completely from her mom and encouraging her to do drugs. When you love someone, you want them to have all the love in the world from their friends and family, and are happy and pleased when they speak with their family. I am thinking of a clip I saw of Anna, where she said something to the effect of "everyone in my life has stabbed me in the back. Everyone has tried to sue me for money. I have no one I can trust". While I'm sure this is true in the case of some people in her life, I find it difficult to believe that everyone acted in a such a manner. I never heard of an attempt by her mother to sue her, for example. Remember that the main lawsuit she was facing in earlier years was brought on by her suing for Howard Marshall's money. To me, it sounds like Howard K Stern could have been feeding her those lines and she was spitting them right back out. That is also classic abusive behavior: "there's no one you can trust but me. Everyone else is a backstabber." Ah! But look who the real backstabber might be! On Larry King, that attorney of hers says that he and Howard K Stern are the executors of Anna's will. How convenient! For all we know, that lawyer could be in on the whole thing. Kill off Daniel and Anna and then steal her entire estate! Howard K Stern could do anything he wanted with that will! there's no system of checks and balances if he's the executor. I rememeber her mom saying on Larry King before she died "If Anna winds up dead, who gets her money?" and "I warned her she could be next." This is BEFORE she died! The whole things seems very very suspicious.

They are also responsible for most of the violent crime against whites too No, this is completely false.

Did anyone see Larry King last night? Anna Nicole's friend came on and said that Howard was directly responsible for shortening Anna's life, and that this friend tried to warn "everyone" including the FBI, the police, friends, and family that Howard was a bad guy. She said she knew this would happen and was not surprised, and that she witnessed Howard giving Anna many different drugs and egging her on to take them and saying "Come on, Come on, I'll take them with you." She said it's a case of "aggravated death". It was very damning. Then Howard's sister came on and disparaged the friend saying the woman was barely in touch with Anna and that people are coming out of the woodwork, etc. But my question is, what would these people have to gain by saying these things about Howard if they weren't true? Why would they risk a lawsuit of slander? It doesn't make sense, unless they really did witness these things. She said she witnessed Howard force Anna Nicole to hang up the phone many times when Anna was trying to talk to friends and family. That is classic abuser behavior. It's interesting. I wonder if Howard would be liable in her death if it was proven he provided drugs to her, either by getting them in his name or by pushing them on her. The story just keeps getting more complex...

I certainly should have been born in Canada.

I never could understand how deciding not to have kids was selfish. The people who tell you that are simply jealous of your independence, freedom, and happiness. They want everyone to suffer the way that they suffer. LOL!

I have two cats, Sunta and Tigger. One is a girl, one a boy. Here's what I call them: Girl cat: Mommy's little baby Tiny tiny princess Mommy's pretty princess Little princess Tiny little baby Mommy's tiny angel Itty bitty little poopsie Boy cat: Handsome fellow Handsome boy Foo foo (lots of variations on Foo Foo like Tiny Foo Foo (for the girl cat), Handsome Foo Foo, Mommy's little Foo Foo, etc) Big handsome boy I realize I am pushing my cats into gender-stereotype roles by what I call them, but since they are only cats and can't understand what I'm saying, it's ok. LOL.

We just got casinos here in PA, and I found myself going just way too often! I would "only" lose up to $80 or so, so it's not like I was in any danger of bankrupting me and my husband, but I was going a few times a week for several weeks. Well, I saw pretty quickly that it could turn into a problem, and so, I stopped going completely. My husband and I are going to Vegas in May, and until then (when I will bring a specified amount to play with and only lose what I can afford), I am not setting foot in a casino. I am good about only playing with what I can afford to lose, but still, going so often was really bad. As for your friend, I agree with the others that she needs to be in a 12-step program. With regard to lending money, I usually say to people "Oh you know, I would LOVE to help out, but I am really broke right now myself!" You shouldn't be hurting your bank account for your friend, and I agree with the others who say that lending her money is enabling her bad habit (even though I realize you were coming from an altruistic place when you did it.)

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. What is the reason that women should submit to men in everything? Why is the man the "head" of everything exactly? When one "submits" they are yielding the authority and power of another. Why do men have authority over women? Why do men have power over women? Do you agree with this church statement? Are you ok with always yielding to the authority of your husband? And if so, why? This statement absoultely places women in a subjugated position under the man, and it espouses the viewpoint that women are secondary to men, and are thus inferior. I am fascinated that a modern woman would even consider allowing herself to be diminished in this way, and to be held in second place beneath her husband. This is an excellent example of how organized religion subverts women.

Sunta: Did you just get a fill? Why do you think your port was causing pain? Mine has from time to time and it has always been after a fill. Hi! Thanks for inquiring. No, my last fill was over three months ago. My pain has been going on for two months now. I have been to the doctor once, and she gave me Celebrex, which does help, but the pain has gotten alot worse and is coming more frequently now. I need to call her back tomorrow and get another appointment. She said the next step was a CT scan. I am very disappointed that at one year out, I'm having problems. I am very concerned that I have a hernia (though she felt for one and said she didn't feel one; however I believe it may be under my port and thus obscured.) I'm assuming that since the pain has been ongoing and worsening for two months that it will not go away on its own and it probably something that must be surgically corrected, which makes me extremely upset. To make matters worse, I am up again tonight unable to sleep, and I'm afraid to take Tylenol PM with the Celebrex due to thinking about Anna Nicole! I'm afraid to combine anything now! HAHAHA I am so neurotic. I did also have two glasses of wine plus internal cold sore medicine, so I am afraid to take Tylenol PM on top of all of that. So it's 3:30am and I'm wide awake! Sorry to take over the thread with my problems!

Ugh. I just saw one of those pictures of Anna, Daniel, and Dannielynne, and I thought oh my goodness, if someone had only known that at the time that picture was taken, in five months, Anna and Daniel would be dead and the baby would remain. It's just so bizarre to think about.

I've been having a ton of port pain, and as a result was up all night last night. Laying in bed trying to sleep despite the pain, my mind just kept wondering to Anna Nicole. I keep wondering why Howard K. Stern allowed her to have access to the drugs, when she was a known drug abuser. It doesn't make sense. Also, why did the nurse call Howard first, and not 911? Most people would instinctively call 911 when they find someone collapsed, and not the person's partner. It seems very suspicious that BOTH Daniel and Anna died from drugs (well I'm assuming it's drugs in her case since the coroner did not find any other acute natural cause such as embolism, heart attack or etc.) Who was giving Anna and Daniel the drugs? Who are these doctors prescribing drugs in lethal combinations??? I feel these are very important questions that need to be addressed. I am not really a person who gets "star struck" or feel I know celebrities, but something about this death has touched me so much more than I ever thought it would. Certainly I have seen other celebrities die young, but none has really affected me this way. I actually feel a feeling of grief for Anna. Maybe it's because we're close in age. I think the circus that has sprung up around her death is both sad and fascinating. I hope all of the lingering questions are answered in time and that her baby can have a stable life, hopefully away from Howard K. Stern.

This story keeps getting more and more insane. Now Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband is claiming that he is the father of Anna Nicole's baby and that if custody is given to either Birkhead or Stern, he will try to gain custody. He claims a 10-year affair with Anna. Meanwhile, Anna's mother is on her way the Bahamas to file for custody. It seems everyone has dollar signs in their eyes. It's pathetic.

Well I went to Catholic school up until college, and one of the main reasons why Catholicism never made sense to me was that they said my mother was a sinner for divorcing my father. Now I was only 9 years old, but I knew right then that the Catholic church was full of crap. Catholicism and most other religions do subvert women and view them as inferior to men. Just look at how women are not allowed to hold the highest positions in the church. It's bullshit. I knew it when I was 9 and I know it now. To the Christians on this thread who say that Christianity does not view women as inferior, please explain why, when I listen to Christian talk radio, they are constantly saying women should not work outside the home and that a woman's place is a wife and mother? That is subverting women, period. Every time I hear it, I shudder when I think of the poor innocent little girls being brainwashed with this nonsense. I wonder how many girls who could have made great and wonderful contributions to society through medicine or science and who will never have that chance because all their lives they are taught to believe that women should never work outside the home; their hopes, dreams, and intellect thwarted at every turn. I am very grateful that even at 8 and 9 years old, I had the self-awareness to know that what I was being taught was a bunch of crap. I wish organized religions would stop their denigration and subjugation of women.

Yes, I can't help but think of the legacy the poor child was born into. Her brother dying in the hospital room days after her death, her mother dying four months later, her mother's bizarre life, and the fight over her custody. I just pray that whichever man is proven to be the father provides a more stable environment for her.

What a sad, sad story. All I can think is that maybe now her baby has somewhat of a chance at a normal life...

Sunta, it's clear from the totality your posts that you believe fundamentalists are the cause of all the world's ills. I would not say that fundamentalism is the cause of all the world's ills, but I really don't think anyone can ignore the ills it does cause, such as wars, the denigration of women, violence, child rape, suicide bombing, and torture. I don't see how anyone could deny these facts. If anyone truly thinks that religion is not bloodthirsty, they need to take a closer look at history.

When I look at the world around me, I see sex crime increases as promiscuity increases. Really??? Shall we get into a discussion of the rape rates in Darfur, a country of devout Muslims? Do you think their society advocates promiscuity? Shall we talk about child sex slaves in Iran, or what's happening in Utah today with devout religious people forcing innocent young girls to marry against their will? No, it's not promiscuity that causes an increase in sex crimes, it's fundamentalism.

Did anyone see the news today about the international child porn ring that was just busted? It was based in Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17022345/ I didn't say Europe has no sex crime, I said it has a lower sex crime rate than the United States.

Why does the "whenever, whoever, whatever" person have an issue? What's the problem with that philosophy? Sex is fun, it doesn't need to be confined to marriage, and there's nothing wrong with multiple partners . . . at least that's what most people here are saying . . . what am I missing? Well I think that most people would view a "healthy" view of sexuality to be sex that takes place responsibly, and not say, unprotected with someone has HIV. Or with someone who is underage, or with say, your best friend's husband. That kind of thing. "Whenever, whoever, whatever" is a decidedly irresponsible-sounding mantra when it comes to sex. One would hope that the majority of people take the appropriate precautions and responsibilities and not completely throw caution to the wind, which can result in many long term and unpleasant consequences. That being said, it is not my position to judge the person that adopts that thinking, but I would think they may face issues down the road if they take a completely irresponsible attitude.

Someone brought up the point about Europe being more permissive of nudity than the US. I think it's very, very interesting to point out that the more permissive the society, the lower the rates of teenage sexual activity, teenage pregnancy, abortion, and rape are. The more restrictive the society, the higher the rates of violent sexual crimes are. Just talk to anyone who comes from the highly religious and restrictive "third world" about their rates of child molestation for example! As natural, normal views of sexuality increase, sex crimes go down. As restrictive, religious, and antiquated views increase, sex crimes go up, way up.

What I'd like to get across to those of you who think sex is fine, whenever, with whoever, for whatever reason -- that's fine for YOU! Who on here said that sex is fine whenever, with whoever, for whatever reason? Someone who would say that may have a bit of an issue. Obviously there are people who have sexual problems that may stem from an abusive childhood for example, or people who are sex addicts and the like. But when discussing normal healthy people, it is clear to see that religion does more harm than good in making (normal) people feel bad and guilty about normal sexual behavior. Such as when two people in a relationship have sex and then feel guilty about it purely because they are not married. And quite frankly, the people I hear about who have the most sexual problems and issues (such as sex addiction, porn addiction, etc.) ARE the religious people! What does that tell us??? Maybe all the repression is not normal and it causes normal sexuality to become skewed. It is normal for boys to look at breasts. Totally and completely natural and normal. It is normal for people to watch porn. I was exposed to porn when I was young (I saw it on a friend's parent's tv), and I am just fine, thanks. Yes, I was curious about it, enjoyed it even. However it did not turn me into a porn addict, not at all! Now, of course I am NOT (I repeat NOT) advocating that children should be exposed to porn or be encouraged to look at sexual images, but if it happens, it's actually just a normal part of growing up and it's really not the end of the world.

Of course it is everyone's personal decision, but if people feel regretful over having sex before marriage, it is generally because of religious reasons (barring any relationship issues; I'm talking about just the fact of having it without being "married"). This is just another way in which organized religion makes people feel guilty and bad about themselves for doing something which is as normal, natural, and basic as breathing. Teens and unmarried people have been having sex since the beginning of time, and it is a natural activity which should not looked upon as shameful or wrong. Any physcological harm that comes from having sex before marriage is imposed by rediculous societal/religious norms which attempt to force people to go against their nature and ignore a strong basic force within themselves. How I wish we would move past this puritanical, outdated, and backwards mindset and let people live their lives without trying to control their sexual behavior. This attempt at control is the very thing that causes the most harm to people. They are in a relationship, have sex, and then feel horrible and guilty about doing something totally normal! Religion is to blame, here, not the sexual act.

I believe in an afterlife of some kind. Energy can't be created or destroyed, so I believe that the energy does live on in some way we don't understand. It's this belief that helps me through the tragic losses I have endured. I do feel that atheists must have it rougher than people who believe in some sort of higher entity, because they believe that once a person is gone, that's it. I think that must be more difficult to deal with loss as an atheist. While I do believe in some higher power, I also wonder from time to time if I am wrong and that perhaps there is no higher power, and so I can completely relate to atheists. I guess I go back and forth somewhat about it. I guess when it comes down to it, no one really knows for sure, and so all possible scenarios must be examined and thought out. When I examine the evidence, I do think that there are forces more powerful than the human being, but I don't think there is some "thinking" entity who is guiding things. Just by looking at the night sky I can see that there is energy, matter, and activity more powerful than human beings, so in a sense, nature, or the universe, is a higher power in itself. Maybe when we die we become one with the universal energy. That being said, from time to time I do have my doubts, which is why I relate to atheists.

Tired Old Man: The Egyptian Book of the Dead has a few different translations, and unfortunately I don't remember which one I read back in school. If you Wiki it, you can find the authors who did translations of the ancient text.

But all the different "rights" out there can't be right if there's dischord (even minor), or if there's mutual exclusion. So it can't be an absolute, and that's a part of why an awful lot of people who do not have religious faith see a whole lot of "doesn't make sense" in any religion that claims it's right. Exactly! Just by nature of there being many religions that claim they are the "right" one, it becomes impossible to prove which is "right". Many people on here have said they believe through "faith", but what makes your faith any more valid than someone of the Muslim "faith"? Both have faith, but believe they are "right". To an impartial observer, there is no way to prove who is "right", especially when neither party wants to prove their doctrine and has no answers for tough questions regarding the authenticity of their doctrine, such as "why are portions of this doctrine copied from earlier writings about different God?"