Comments for Shieldwolf's Weblog

Comment on Evolution of a wolf by shieldwolf

shieldwolf — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:30:09 +0000

Many thanks my friend and thanks also for a bit of history about my name that I was not aware of. I have always felt my “roots” were deep in your country. Being adopted I don’t know my birth families history but know what my heart tells me.

Comment on Evolution of a wolf by Randall (Shieldwolf)

Randall (Shieldwolf) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:31:12 +0000

I too am “Shieldwolf” by Gaelic name
Aye tis long afore the Norsemen came to The Englands,and Gaelic was the speach.
My family name of Dean means “Valley”
a lone villager brought a group of people o’er the channels into the valleys north away from the Saxons, and he was named Shieldwolf ( Randall)of the Valley (Dean)
still I hold true tae me name as I too have no need fer this modern world. or any of it’s uses (cars certainly not) I must walk, and if the offices do not like me being on time.. then they can learn also to walk …. Just a wee bit o me m8. Wishin ye a Lovely oncoming weekend. and I do appreciate yer writings

Comment on by shieldwolf

shieldwolf — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:03:29 +0000

Thanks for the kind words Jann. I have not been blogging as much as I should. Seems like my days are filled with work and my nights are trying to keep up with emails and list I’m moderating. Feel free to take a look at this list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/true_warriors/, and join if you are interested. There are several other wolves on the list.

I’ll try to “blog” some more later now that people are actually reading the damn thing!
Randal

Comment on by Jann

Jann — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:59:52 +0000

Hey, this BLOG is GREAT!!! I came here cuz it came up while I was doing a search to find Thorin’s book, “Wolf if Wolves Clothing” (hard to find btw) which my son suggests I read. He and I have similar views which it appears match your own. Freedom is the name of the game, baybay. So glad you are free to be YOU…. keep it up!!! and thanks for providing the info.

Comment on You can’t handle the truth! by Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:14:39 +0000

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.

Comment on by Marsha

Marsha — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:16:04 +0000

And thank the goddess that you are who you are. If you were anyone else, I’d be without the best friend I have ever had. I also refuse to assimilate – don’t see why I can’t march to the beat of my own fucking drummer. He plays everything from Korn to Vivaldi, so I have an interesting life. Keep rockin’ on. Stay hard, live fast, and die a spectacular death.

Comment on You can’t handle the truth! by shieldwolf

shieldwolf — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:05:43 +0000

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’t know where you got the “real men must fight” idea but it was not from what I wrote.

Randal

Comment on You can’t handle the truth! by Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:29:28 +0000

Hm… Well sunshine, you know how I love to argue, so I have some questions for you here.

“Men are no longer men”
This is going to lead to a biiiig long rant, apologies in advance.
I don’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’t think people starting barfights over a name called are real men.
One of my dear friends is talking to me and just said “Well, maybe he means homosexuals, they aren’t real men.” This is to you both.
Some of them aren’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’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’t mean I couldn’t be a warrior. The stronger warrior uses thought before fists. Example, and an obvious one I’ll admit, was Ghandi. Look at how much he changed things for the better with entirely passive actions. He didn’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’t a man… I’m damn glad I don’t associate with real men.

Comment on TV in real life by J.

J. — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:05:18 +0000

I agree, depressing. I don’t watch much of it anyway. Ok, I do watch one or two ( on the comedy end) because I have a warped sense of humor! Most of the time I’m the only one laughing.

Comment on Were have all the warriors gone? by shieldwolf

shieldwolf — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:26:26 +0000

The nature of man seems to be to die trying to win a battle. It can be a war or a battle to discover new countries. Seems to be the way we are programmed.

There are things worth fighting, killing and dying for. I would defend my family, to the death, as I would this country if needed. That being said, I don’t think we have any business being in any military conflict since World War II. If for no other reason, according to our own Constitution, these wars were unlawful since they were not declared.

While you talk about genocides committed, women and children raped, etc, I would argue that the men that committed these acts were not warriors, they were pieces of shit with weapons.

True warriors do not wage war against innocent people. They do not commit genocide, they do not rape. They do their job; defend their country and family and go back home. They help the innocent and protect them.

Wars are not started by warriors; they are started by politicians and monarchs, some of which have been women. If the war is not finished it is because of the leaders of our country, not the warriors.
Warriors are the ones that kill and die at the order of someone sitting on their ass in Washington or some other country. Again while atrocities have been committed during war, they were not committed by true warriors but by shitheads wearing a uniform and I have known both.