<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: You can&#8217;t handle the truth!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/you-cant-handle-the-truth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/you-cant-handle-the-truth/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:30:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/you-cant-handle-the-truth/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:14:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-40</guid>
		<description>Hm. I believe it was a misinterpretation on my part and I extend my apologies. Rereading it for the fourth time or so, I understand what you were saying.

And the chart is excellent by the way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm. I believe it was a misinterpretation on my part and I extend my apologies. Rereading it for the fourth time or so, I understand what you were saying.</p>
<p>And the chart is excellent by the way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shieldwolf</title>
		<link>http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/you-cant-handle-the-truth/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>shieldwolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Rachel,

Please re-read my blog above. There was nothing in there where I said that a man was only a man if he was willing to fight nor is that what I believe to be true.

A man is not defined by his willingness to fight but if he is backed into a corner, or protecting his family, he had better fight very well.

I have several gay male friends and relatives. They are real men, being a men is not dependent on sexual preference.

I like the chart on this webpage and I think it says it better than I could, check out the table at this link:

http://www.diserio.com/malematrix.html

Again, I don&#039;t know where you got the &quot;real men must fight&quot; idea but it was not from what I wrote.

Randal</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rachel,</p>
<p>Please re-read my blog above. There was nothing in there where I said that a man was only a man if he was willing to fight nor is that what I believe to be true.</p>
<p>A man is not defined by his willingness to fight but if he is backed into a corner, or protecting his family, he had better fight very well.</p>
<p>I have several gay male friends and relatives. They are real men, being a men is not dependent on sexual preference.</p>
<p>I like the chart on this webpage and I think it says it better than I could, check out the table at this link:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.diserio.com/malematrix.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.diserio.com/malematrix.html</a></p>
<p>Again, I don&#8217;t know where you got the &#8220;real men must fight&#8221; idea but it was not from what I wrote.</p>
<p>Randal</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/you-cant-handle-the-truth/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:29:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shieldwolf.wordpress.com/?p=18#comment-37</guid>
		<description>Hm... Well sunshine, you know how I love to argue, so I have some questions for you here.

&quot;Men are no longer men&quot;
This is going to lead to a biiiig long rant, apologies in advance. 
I don&#039;t understand what you mean by men not still being men. They are just as much so as ever. A willingness to physically fight does not make one a man. In fact, one of the great things that men should have in common with beasts is a reluctance to fight, to fight only for a true purpose. I don&#039;t think people starting barfights over a name called are real men.
One of my dear friends is talking to me and just said &quot;Well, maybe he means homosexuals, they aren&#039;t real men.&quot; This is to you both. 
Some of them aren&#039;t. The ones who hide away because they are scared of what their family will think, the ones who refuse to fight for their rights, aren&#039;t real men. The ones who admit the are gay and are damn proud are real men because that takes the courage of a true warrior. 
Just throwing the idea out there.
Also, I would probably be very hard pressed to start a real physical fight with someone, but this doesn&#039;t mean I couldn&#039;t be a warrior. The stronger warrior uses thought before fists. Example, and an obvious one I&#039;ll admit, was Ghandi. Look at how much he changed things for the better with entirely passive actions. He didn&#039;t need to use physical violence to be a warrior, or a man. If not having the good old fighting spirit, meaning jumping directly to grab the guns and hunt those mofos down, means you aren&#039;t a man... I&#039;m damn glad I don&#039;t associate with real men.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm&#8230; Well sunshine, you know how I love to argue, so I have some questions for you here.</p>
<p>&#8220;Men are no longer men&#8221;<br />
This is going to lead to a biiiig long rant, apologies in advance.<br />
I don&#8217;t understand what you mean by men not still being men. They are just as much so as ever. A willingness to physically fight does not make one a man. In fact, one of the great things that men should have in common with beasts is a reluctance to fight, to fight only for a true purpose. I don&#8217;t think people starting barfights over a name called are real men.<br />
One of my dear friends is talking to me and just said &#8220;Well, maybe he means homosexuals, they aren&#8217;t real men.&#8221; This is to you both.<br />
Some of them aren&#8217;t. The ones who hide away because they are scared of what their family will think, the ones who refuse to fight for their rights, aren&#8217;t real men. The ones who admit the are gay and are damn proud are real men because that takes the courage of a true warrior.<br />
Just throwing the idea out there.<br />
Also, I would probably be very hard pressed to start a real physical fight with someone, but this doesn&#8217;t mean I couldn&#8217;t be a warrior. The stronger warrior uses thought before fists. Example, and an obvious one I&#8217;ll admit, was Ghandi. Look at how much he changed things for the better with entirely passive actions. He didn&#8217;t need to use physical violence to be a warrior, or a man. If not having the good old fighting spirit, meaning jumping directly to grab the guns and hunt those mofos down, means you aren&#8217;t a man&#8230; I&#8217;m damn glad I don&#8217;t associate with real men.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
