helping out... the money issue

[thekfc]

I don't think that anyone could remotely infer that I was comparing Zulu to Mayweather when I wrote:

                >>. You may like Floyd Mayweather, but I don't hate you for that--or for anything! <<
 
I did get the at the top (over the top?) quote in response from Zulu and in response that comment, Kfc's comment:                                             
                                                                      >>Ouch!!!!<<

Well, it was a cheap shot alright,....

Yep, that was an unwarranted dirty cheap shot - a wtf post.
 
Reading & following the thread (s) I didn't see any post where you infered/made any comparison the other poster &  the boxer - I even went back & re-read the posts.

[robert angel]

Rob,

You apparently don't like Mayweather, I get that.

My question is why are you spending so much time on this guy?  That I don't get.

Its obvious you did a bit of research on all of this young man's misgivings, I'm impressed.

Nice job.

But I think you left out a very important point out and what I think is MUCH MORE relevent to P-L and the readers of this forum, because at the end of the day you are comparing Pacquiao and Mayweather, right?

And this website promotes "honest and ethical behaviors" right?

You don't have a clue to what I'm talking about do you?

I'll explain, this won't take much typing either. 

Follow closely, I may lose you...

Mayweather is an immature man who can't control his temper.  He has anger management issues.  I feel sorry for the guy because if you listen to him for more that 5 minutes you can see he has pretty low self esteem. 

Kinda sad, but that's the fact.  He's extremely rich and talented but also very spoiled and unfortunately he will probably get no help for his problems.

His many arrests and legal issues are the indications of a very self destructive young man.

I predict an ensuing train wreck for the guy, he will eventually implode and destroy himself.

Now, for Pacquiao the Pious, he is a cheater and and a whore monger....end of story.
 
As one of the most out spoken advocates of high morals and values on P-L, its very interesting to me that you hold Pacquiao the Pious whore monger in such high esteem.

If any member of P-L exhibited his whore monger behavior you would quickly chastise and write a very long post to admonish the perp.

So why so quiet on Pacquiao and so loud and vociferous on Mayweather?

The End.

Zulu

Zulu,

This is getting a little ridiculous with your increasingly condescending and even some might call 'cheap shots' on me. They're seemingly indicative of where you're coming from lately. I have said I usually try to respond to reasonable challenges to what I post and I'll give this another try.


Contrare to what you claim (how you would really know, I have no idea) I have read your posts and lately they seem rather one dimensional, to be honest.


Not that I'm one to run off when people seem to be getting on me aggressively, but I see the way this thread's degenerating and I'm not interested in sending it to the flame room and following it there. I just asoon move onto to topics we can hopefully be more cordial on.


My comments on individuals Pacquiao and up until recently, Mayweather, have by and large been about boxing and their actions in that realm. So yes, I have been comparing them--as boxers. You chose to get into Pacquiao's personal life and not, which I would think only fair since you chose such an approach, to compare it to Mayweathers.


When YOU started with the 'whore monger stuff' and such pap. Did I deny it? Pacquaio's shameful infidelities have been common knowledge for years, especially in his own country.


But once you started posting stuff from the gossip columnists, I thought I'd shed some light on your favorite, Mayweather, stating the factual legal record of his beating on women, as well as on males. There's a lot more dirt I could've dished, but hey--what's the point? I never claimed that either guy was some paragon of morality--not even close.I had made criticisms of Mayweather's  dodging tough fights, but even you seem to agree on that account.
 

Other than his boxing, I don't think there's much that I've said that could be seen as you say, as holding Pacquiao in 'high esteem' as 'pious' or any such thing.
 

I'll willingly admit that in his last two fights, Pacquaio was not in top form and besides the marital problems he brought on himself, he's not applying himself in training camp lately. The legs are the first to go, my late Uncle, (a Bronx golden Gloves Champion), always used to tell me, and Pacquio hasn't listened to his trainers on leg conditioning. His biggest fans say the cramping's due to overtraining, but I think it's from not listening to his own people. Training harder than you want to and staying away from women before a fight are two of the most cardinal rules of boxing and Pacquiao's seemingly not 'getting it'. And unlike some, I don't think it's some 'plan' to make Mayweather's camp think he's now 'over the hill', ripe and finally ready for the taking.
 

Mayweather, on the otherhand, has the best legs in boxing these days and shows the best legwork since Sugar Ray Leonard and is at least as good a defensive fighter. Ortiz was hammering Mayweather pretty good though-- I feel the fight was pretty even and that Mayweather knew his bell was getting rung pretty hard and he was more than willing to sucker punch Ortiz to avoid further damage--perhaps even his first loss. I think Mayweather was in great shape and form, but that he underestimated Ortiz, who was a 7 to 1 underdog going in.


If you want to continue this thread in a manner that not only denigrates two professional boxers--who really, being in the public realm are fair game, but also denigrating you and I, I'd rather not carry on on such a vein. I'd  rather 'put it there', agree that we disagreed and move on.

[fathertime]

FT,

My posts about Risk management (which you apparently have not read) articulate, what I think is a constructive universal methodology for dealing with prepagos.

My "king" post that you are referring to you, is really being taken out of the context of my original point to the thread author that he should "man up" and "king up" and get some balls and not be used as an ATM.

Z

hey zulu
i don't understand why you have brought prepagos and risk managment into the discussion....i'm not even referring to one post about being a 'king'...from my persepctive the attitde is a little stong for marriage...but hey you can give it a go and see how it works out!


Fathertime! 

[Bob_S]

Okay, I've had some time to think about it, and I'd like to chime in on the whole "king of your castle" thing.  If you view it as a king and queen, and not as a king with servants, you are on the right track.  Let me illustrate.
Back when me and the missus were still somewhat newly married (and had discretionary income because it was pre-baby time), we had a chance to do some travel, and by good chance found our way to Egypt.  One of the things I noticed about the sculptures were the "pair" statues, often of a man and a woman.  And where they were seated or standing next to each other, the woman usually had her arm around her man, and sometimes the man would reciprocate.



As an old fashioned romantic, I found this all very moving, especially coming from what I imagined was a very rough and "macho" culture of masters and slaves.  It was a sweet side I had never seen.

In my own home, I found myself the king of my castle, but not because I demand it but because my queen has made me so.  It is just natural for her to shape our home in this manner.  And without her support with her arm around me, I would be nothing but a broken half-statue of a man.

[Researcher]

   Nice post Bob S. and right on point. I can see where being a King in your relationship can mean don't be abusive but don't be a wuss either.

       Researcher

[maritime04]

Bob those sculptures of you and the miss are nice, i get your point. But its always good to look down memory lane pre baby phase, or pre iron!!!

[thekfc]

I would also like to put my 1 cent in on the subject (I do not have enough to make 2 cents).
 
I will not say that I am the "King Of My Castle"  because I do not use that phrase/term. The term I use is Head of the Household. 
 
The head of the household is a provider, a leader, a protector, a comforter, a lover, a supporter, a teacher, a listener, a nurturer, an encourager, a manager and a treasurer - the same can be said for the wife.
 
He is not someone who uses violence or manipulation to enforce his leadership role; nor be on some  power/ego trip or abuse his authority.
 
He do not view his wife as someone who is "just there" to have & raised children - he views her as his equal & his balancer. 
 
When he makes decisions, it is made to benefit his family -  his wife & children. He places his wife/children's needs and desires above his own. He do not make decisions based on his own feelings, desires, or wisdom. He seek the advice/counsel of his wife on reaching the best decisions as they are a team who work (should work) together to build a life for them & their family.
 
Take a look at the pics Bob_S posted. The "Queen" is standing NEXT to her "King" (with the arms supporting each other) -  she is NOT standing  or seating behind him.
 
Edited 2 words for better calrification.

[JWR]

Excellent post.
 

I would also like to put my 1 cent in on the subject (I do not have enough to make 2 cents).
 
I will not say that I am the "King Of My Castle"  because I do use that phrase/term. The term I use is Head of the Household. 
 
The head of the household is a provider, a leader, a protector, a comforter, a lover, a supporter, a teacher, a listener, a nurturer, an encourager, a manager and a treasurer - the same can be said for the wife.
 
He is not someone who uses violence or manipulation to enforce his leadership role; nor be on some of power/ego trip or abuse his authority.
 
He do not view his wife as someone who is "just there" to have & raised children - he views her as his equal & his balancer. 
 
When he makes decisions, it is made to benefit his family -  his wife & children. He places his wife/children's needs and desires above his own. He do not make decisions based on his own feelings, desires, or wisdom. He seek the advice/counsel of his wife on reaching the best decisions as they are a team who work (should work) together to build a life for them & their family.
 
Take a look at the pics Bob_S posted. The "Queen" is standing NEXT to her "King" (with the arms supporting each other) -  she is NOT standing  or seating behind him.

[thekfc]

Some of what I posted above was told to me by older retired gentlemen (they were all over 80 yrs old young; one was a writer, another a pastor, etc,.) who use to hand out in a park where myself & friends use to practice tkd. It was such a joy to hear those guys talk - they were full of knowledge/wisdom/experience AND was ready/willing to pass it on to us younger generation. 
 
 

[Bob_S]

Bob those sculptures of you and the miss are nice,

Gah!  Even when I was still athletic, I never looked like a ripped Egyptian god.     Yul Brynner set a high standard back in 1956.

[z_k_g]

I would never use the work "Head" of household.

In our society every word that we adopt has somehow got to equate to equality.  We can't say "king" because that somehow implies male.

So non PC!  God forbid that any person that is "male" and "leader" reside in an American household!

So nowadays we use some meaningless androgynous (wimpy) term "head" of household.

Pure silliness in my humble opinion and indicates to me a further acceptance that we have not balls in our society anymore.

To each his own.

Call yourself a Head if you like!

By the way you will notice that in every single African (Egyptian) statue, the man is taller than the woman.

Also, notice that when standing, her feet are always together and the man stands on his right foot and his left foot is always in the leading or stepping forward.  (Google more African statues and you will see this is always the case)

Why is this?

The foot forward is the sign of leadership, the man always leads (takes the steps) and the woman follows.

Most importantly, he leads with the left foot because that is the side that your heart resides.

The king leads with his heart and his woman follows, this is how you lead your family this is how you lead your nation.

This principle is over 4,000 years old, thanks for an excellent post on Kings.

Zulu

[thekfc]

Isn't a king a head of state - one who inherits the position by right of birth (or takes it through violence).

Key word head as in head of state, head of household.   

[Bob_S]

So nowadays we use some meaningless androgynous (wimpy) term "head" of household.

Pure silliness in my humble opinion and indicates to me a further acceptance that we have not balls in our society anymore.

Hey, don't knock the term "head".  It has an old and noble lineage, too.

²² Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

[maritime04]

Bob, what were you like 30 when paul said that?

[z_k_g]

Hey, don't knock the term "head".  It has an old and noble lineage, too.

Agreed.

I wonder if our P-L uber "PC" posters will have issue with your bible verse and the liberal use of that evil word - submit.     Here is my rant on submit

Every man should require his wife to read that bible verse and fully understand its meaning. 

Women respect a strong man, a true leader, and even though they preach the desire to marry compromisers, co-parents and and sensitive men if that's all you can bring to the table, your woman eventually develops utter contempt for you.  They want a man who they can follow, anywhere, period.

Certain P-L members question my use of the word "king" and drop subtle hints that my "young" pinay is headed for a Zulu train wreck and "one big f*cking surprise".

They conclude, that any man that would dare use THAT word must be some neanderthal abusive schmuck who will domineer some unsuspecting helpless tween asian chick and "make her pay" for what an American feminist did to him.

This is some amazingly funny shyt but it really shows you how effective feminists have extricated all things "male" in our society.  They have embedded in the American psyche that men are ultimately evil and we are not fit to lead and any man that would dare use the word "king" is an as$hole. 

If you make any attempt to assert your leadership then you will be castigated, corrected and forced to apologize for your verbal transgression and poor choice of words!

I laughed when I read this and basically ignored it. 

Why?

Well, when I first met my sweetie SHE pointed out this same bible verse too me and committed to living up to her responsibility as long as I was a good leader and made decisions with my heart first and lived up to my responsibility and kept god first.

Imagine that, a woman that understands and embraces her role and she loves her king! 

The bottom line is that men lead and women follow.  By definition leadership excludes sharing of authority and I like the word "king" because you won't be confused about the gender of the leader- male.  (as god intended)

Sharing of leadership is a political invention and subterfuge (by feminists and bitchboys) and ultimately a lie used to appease and convince the uneducated and soft brained true believer that the (feminist) genderless society actually exists.

I reject it.

So.....

Either you lead, follow or get out of the damn way.

Zulu

[thekfc]

I wonder if our P-L uber "PC" posters will have issue with your bible verse and the liberal use of that evil word - submit.     

I wonder who the P-L uber "PC" posters are?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[thekfc]

Bob, what were you like 30 when paul said that?

Nope, he was just entering middle age. 

[Bob_S]

Nope, he was just entering middle age. 

What? No!  I'm not that old.  I was just 20 at the time.  Ah, I remember it fondly.  I was a young rebel, a member of the People's Front of Judea, protesting against the Roman 1% who stamped their imperialist footprint on our country by building aqueducts, roads, and amphatheaters all over the place.  Romanus Eunt Domus!

[z_k_g]

Bob,

That band of jewish miscreants was called the "Kingdom of God" movement who were hated by the pharasees and their Roman friends and their young leader finally crucified for his rebellious teachings.

The leader of this much despised rebel group?

A young fellow named Yeshua de Nazereth.

Zulu

[maritime04]

Romans........during the Republic; now there was a society!!!!!

I do not think you are a Neanderthal abusive schmuck; you do what you want in your house. Nobody is telling you otherwise

Every man should require his wife to read that bible verse and fully understand its meaning.

No one should be required to do anything. That sounds allot like political correctness!!

Leadership
Leadership is influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation, while
operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.

You are confusing leadership with management, or monarchy with absolute power/rule, leadership in any organizational military sense always has a hierarchy with leaders reporting up the chain of command, in leadership authority is not absolute or divine it is inherent to those who have learned to use it In-directly.

In-direct power pays a lot more attention to the environment and his people and their concerns and establishes strong and redundant communication networks that help to create communal visions and feedback loops to keep everybody on the same sheet of music. You will naturally demonstrate respect for alternative points of view and value openness and dissent as a means of moving closer to our goal than as a direct challenge to his own authority.

Squad leader to platoon leader to company commander to battalion to regiment to division to army to chief of staff to secretary to president to voters………………………………..

Leaders at all levels must be able to communicate, coordinate, and negotiate with a variety of personnel.

Leaders communicate by expressing ideas and actively listening to others. Effective leaders
Understand the nature and power of communication and practice effective communication techniques so they can better relate to others and translate goals into actions. Communication is essential to all other leadership competencies.

No one is fit to lead unless he earns that right to lead, male or female.

You are talking about marriage however and I do understand your anger toward the feminist movement, and the state of marriage in America today, from the articles below I see some ridiculous ideas

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/



“As I would not be a slave I would not be a master”

The bottom line is that men lead and women follow.  By definition leadership excludes sharing of authority and I like the word "king" because you won't be confused about the gender of the leader- male.  (as god intended)
If you actually have to tell people you’re the leader, then your probly NOT the leader, everyone is entitled to run their own lives in the manner which they think best. You have no more right to tell me how to live my life then I have yours.
 

[z_k_g]

Mari,
 
Nice post, but.....what does that have to do with the bible verse that I was commenting on?
 
Zulu

[Bob_S]

Ah, I can see my nerdy pop culture allusion fell flat. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

[maritime04]

Absolutely nothing I was just rambling………………………………………………………………………………….

[z_k_g]

Absolutely nothing I was just rambling………………………………………………………………………………….

Mari,

I do that a lot on here............

Z