Harlot

Networking absolutely helps. I don't care what anyone says, the more people you know, the easier it is to get jobs and opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable. However, when I say networking, I don't mean facebook. Maybe facebook can help in respects to politics, but when I say networking I mean getting to know your employers well enough to the point where if you find a better job, you can always call and ask for your old job back. I mean going to community events or city council meetings, and getting to know the politicians in your city. I means getting to know business leaders to the point where they know you by face and name. Networking means making sure that people are familiar with you, and know who you are. I constantly network, and try to meet new people because you never know what you might need or who will be able to help you with your needs.

It really depends. If you have never had a job before, and it is an internship with a end date, I would suggest that you go ahead and work for free just so that you can get experience and be able to say that you have work experience when it does come time to apply for a paying job. Also, if the internship is working with something that you like to do that is even better. Its really best to get an internship that you are interested in or in a field that you would like to know more about because in that case, you have more of an incentive for working for free. I did as internship, and although I was paid, I would have done it for free and when the guy told me that funding was tied up I told him that I would do it for free because it was something that I was interested in getting more experience in. However, obviously the funds for untied up and I got paid while at the same time doing something that I enjoyed and wanted to learn about, so it was two thumbs up. I think the internship really set the stage for me getting a new job. Whenever I got to an interview, I was always asked about my work experience and I would have otherwise had nothing to say. Nevertheless, I was able to say that I interned at this place and list all the duties that I had, and I was even able to create conversation by telling stories about my experiences on the internship and how I handled the quickly and professionally. I had been to job interviews before the internship, and I had to simply say that I had completely no experience, and that pretty much meant that I would not be hired. So I say that if you don't have work experience and you can afford to take it, take it even if it doesn't pay. In fact, when you are in your next job interview mention that you worked an unpaid intern. That really says a lot to a potential employee about your dedication if you worked for no pay.

I personally don't think there should be an introduction page at all unless it emphasis the fact that Xisto gives free hosting and free domains. The problem with Xisto is that it is not being marketed correctly. When I joined Xisto, I joined because I needed free webhosting. I didn't join because I wanted a quest for wisdom, so but I did not. I think more emphasis should be placed on webhosting like it was under Xisto. I really think Xisto is making a big marketing mistake, and I actually think it should be still named Xisto instead of Xisto.In addition, there is really no reason for Xisto to be so dead because this is literally the only place that gives free domains, and give you full control over those domains. I don't know any other community or company that does that, and I run across people on the web all the time who are looking for a company that gives out domains for posting. However, somehow they have never heard of Xisto. There are website where free webhosting is marketed, such as the free webhosting forums, but there is completely no advertisement of Xisto taking place there. So I think the front page should basically represent the fact that Xisto gives free hosting and domains, and the other crap should be dropped.

I've noticed a trend, the maximum I have ever got in a single payout has been $5. There has been two occasions when I posted quite a bit and remained active, and when the payout came in it was exactly $5.00 and not a center more. Has anyone ever gotten more than $5, or has anyone gotten more than $5 recently. Like this month or in the last few weeks? If so, then that would mean that some posting does not count if you go over the $5 pay out limit.

Bachmann recently stated in South Carolina that on the first day of her administration, has prices would decrease to less than $2 a gallon, and she went on to criticize President Obama's administration of mishandling gas prices, and she pointed after that before President Obama took office gas prices were below $2, and now they are above $3. However, obviously the president has little control over the cost of gas and gas prices due to the fact that the price of crude oil is controlled by mid eastern nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and also other nations that are in OPEC, which is an organization of mostly middle eastern nations who are some of the biggest oil producers in the world. Bachmann did lay out a plan to lower the restrictions on oil drilling, but there was a recent report that stated that even if the US opened up its East Coast and West Coast for oil drilling, only 500,000 barrels would be produced and the world uses over 89 million barrels a year, and by the time that 500,000 barrels are produced, which is by 2030, the world consumption would have already increased to 100m barrels. Also, OPEC has pledged to cut production if the US increases its production, which means that the prices would still remain the same if not go higher. So what do you think? Can Bachmann lower gas prices to lower than $2 if she becomes President?

I've been keeping track of the GOP campaign for President for the last couple of months, and I want to give my opinion of some of the candidates and then mention which candidate I think has the best chances of winning a general election. I am going to try to be as reasonable as possible, and give reasons for why I feel the way I do about certain candidates and why I think they have a chance of winning or don't have a chance at all.Mitt RomneyI think Mitt Romney is probably the best candidate on the GOP side and has the best chance of winning the general election. I think he has a little bit weaker when it comes to winning the primary because he isn't as aggressive an far to the right as some of the other members who pride their campaign on Tea Party politics. However, he seem to stay above the fray and re-frame from launching personal attacks on other candidates. He looks much more presidential, and looking presidential is all about character and class. I don't think it is presidential material when someone constantly launches attacks rather than focusing on their own campaign and policies. As far as I can tell Mitt Romney has done that, and even when he attacks other candidates, the attacks usually have a sound logical basis or at not so harsh to the point that it looks like he is simply pandering to the far right GOP base rather than simply speaking his mind and telling the people what he truly believes. That is one of the main ways he different from the majority of the other candidates, especially those that are on the GOP side and in the primary. He seems to be well informed on all the issues, he is a moderately charismatic guy and a decent speaker. He is in a good position at the moment, and may be the winner of the GOP primary and possibly the general election if President Obama can't get his campaign together. Newt GingrichI think Newt Gingrich is probably one of the most intelligent people who are within the GOP party when it comes to policy, and certain the most intelligent when it comes to those who are currently running for the GOP nomination for President of the United States. I've monitors him for quite a while, and his knowledge of how Washington works, and the effectiveness of the legislative process seems to be beyond the knowledge of every other candidate in the party. He usually don't pointlessly attack other candidates, and just like Mitt Romney, he looks above the fray. However, his only weakness is that he is so boring and uncharismatic. He can talk all day about policies in detail, but he doesn't seem to have the power to inspire people, and that is what is needed in order to win a campaign. People don't always vote for the smartest person on the stage, they vote for the person who they can remember most, and the people who present policies in a way that is easy to understand, logical, appealing, and emotionally moving. I can't see him winning the GOP primary, and if he does, the GOP is in trouble in respects to the general election. I highly doubt he is a man who can beat Obama. John McCain has a better chance of beating President Obama in a general election than he does. Another issue is that he seems a bit uncompromising and stubborn. This is obviously just a first impression since I don't personally know him, but it seems that his unwillingness to compromising may have been what lead to the collapse of his campaign earlier this year, when his entire campaign team pretty much quit on him, walked out, and join the campaign of other candidates.Michele BachmannI think Michele Backmann is in no way presidential material. She is only slightly more intelligent than Sarah Palin, and it appears that she does not have the intellectual capacity of candidates such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I really want to say that she is the dumbest candidate in the entire GOP field. I can't think of any candidate more dumber in respects to politics and policy making on the federal level unless Sarah Palin or Donald Trump decides to throw their hats in the race. However, I can say that she is a good speaker and knows how to use talking points. Because of that, despite her perceived lack of knowledge, she has a chance to win the primary, especially due to the fact that she has closely aligned herself with the far right GOP base, and the Teaparty. Also, when she won the Lowa straw poll, that showed that she could mobilize people and she had a base to support her campaign. Nevertheless, she is probably one of the most far right candidates in the race, and she has not problem launching personal attacks at other candidates that are running in the primary or President Obama. Everytime she is on stage she talks about President Obama being a one term president, and that seems to be all that she talks about. It is always about the policies of President Obama or how terrible he is when she is on stage. She is going to have to talk about more than President Obama if she wins the primary and is thrown into a general election. I personally don't think she can win a general election, and she will have a hard time winning over independents. One good thing about her is that she did steal the fire of Sarah Palin. She took the lights and cameras right off of poor Sarah lol.Herman CainI think Herman Cain is the candidate with one of lowest chance of winning. I comes off as the 2nd dumbest candidate in the race, with the exception of Michele Bachmann. He is just a loud mouth, but nothing he says ever has any substance. He just talks talks talks, and run his mouth. Another problem that he has is that he makes comments that he is not willing to stick with. For example, his comment that he would not allow Muslims in his administration. He made that comment, and later retracted it after he visited with Muslim leaders, and he claimed that he lacked knowledge of Islam when he made the comments. Who wants a President that lacks knowledge of other cultures? That is a recipe for disastrous foreign relations. Even if he thought that about Muslims, no candidate who is Presidential material would say it because we have to work with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait, who are all Muslim allies who are important to the national security of the US. Another thing is that most of our oil comes from Muslim nations. The guy is not stable enough to be President, and he has completely no chance of winning either the primary or the general election. I can't really think of any strength that he has. He isn't even good at moving a crowd or speaking. He comes off too much as shouting. Although Michele Bachmann doesn't come off as intellectual, she has the ability to move a crowd and speak in a way that people are attracted to her, and she also knows what not to say as a political candidate. Ron PaulI think Ron Paul is probably the most honest candidate in the race. However, his honesty really hurts his chance of winning. I think he probably down there with Herman Cain when it comes to his chance of winning for GOP primary. As for winning a general election, he certainly doesn't have a chance. Although polls show that he can beat Obama, I highly doubt that most of the people taking those polls know who Ron Paul is or the policies that he advocate for. When he starts talking about abolishing the CIA, FBI, and removing all US bases, cutting military spending, abolishing Social Security, and Medicare, and the Department of Education, people will certainly run the other way. His policies conflict with the interest of too many people, and I think they would rather have another 4 years under President Obama rather than risk enduring 4 years under Ron Paul. I know I am missing come candidate, but those are the few candidate who I think are mot visible. Does anyone else have an opinion on these candidates?

Jeb Bush today was interviewed where he gave his opinion on the 2012 election and I think he hit the nail right on the head when he talked about the GOP's habit of bashing President Obama as a means to winning the 2012 election. I miss the days where candidates argued their ideological points and make logical stances on how to build a better nation, but now all I hear is "One Term President", "Tar Baby", and "You Lie". I don't hear any arguments on how conservative policies will turn around the economic crisis, create more jobs, and help lower the country's exploding financial deficit. It really is a turn off to hear nothing but attacks from people who are just trying to ride a wave of dissent into a political office. I will say that Mitt Romney has been careful not to attack, and has focused a bit more on the issues than on President Obama. However, people such as Bachmann, Palin, and Herman Cain have not presented any solutions, and only spend all of their air times launching attack after attack. Maybe that will play well with the GOP base, but that does not move independents and right leaning democrats that the GOP nominee will need in order to win the general election. Ronald Reagen is a prime example of how campaign should be ran. I am not a conservative, but he was an individual who stuck to the message and was able to inspire even those who disagreed with him. So currently, I think Romney is probably the most reasonable person on the GOP side. He is no Reagen, but he is a decent candidate compared to the other.

I wish they could tell us exactly how the system works, and it would be nice if we can see how much we have earned instantly. Perhaps the earnings would have to be validated before being able to spend it on hosting or domain just to ensure that there is no spamming in order to earn the MyCentos. I think it is really inconvenient to not know how much you have earned until its too late to increase activity so that you can reach the needed number of MyCentos. I left Xisto a few months ago and joined another free hosting community, but I guess I'm back. I miss the quality of hosting that Xisto, even though the community is all but dead. So now I am back dealing with this MyCento system that is obviously unpredictable. Also, I though we received MyCento based on the performance of our threads also. It doesn't seem as if that it reoccurring. I don't think I receive MyCento from threads that are still getting traffic.

CNN today reported that the rebels are currently hunting for Gadhafi and a ransom of 1.4 million was placed on his head. They said that they want him dead or alive. People are saying that they think that he is still in the country, but I don't think Gadhafi is that stupid. I've been trying to think of countries that would be willing to risk taking him in. For example, there has been talk and speculation that Tunisia has offered to shelter Gadhafi, but they just had a revolution themselves that overthrew the regrieme of their 30+ year president, so it is really hard to believe that they would be willing to take him in and risk the US and France making attempts to initiate another revolution. There has been talk about Zimbabwe taking him in, but it seems that Mugabe wouldn't want to take that risk either. He already has a trigger on his back, so why would he want to take in Gadhafi and make himself even more of a target for stuff like sanctions and military intervention. Saudi has a long history of taking in overthrown tyrants. They even offered to take in the Egyptian President, but its hard to see them taking in Gadhafi due to their relationship with the West and because of the fact that Saudi and Libya have never had good relations. They have been into it with each other for a long time, and one Gadhafi threatened to bring Saudi to its knees. The only countries that I can think of that will take him is and not fear the blow back that would result is North Korea and Venesula. He has a good relationship with both countries, but the question is how will he get there at this point, if he is not already there. I think Venesula is probably his best option in terms of living a decent life, but Chavez has been sick lately and if he dies its hard to tell who will take over the country. If someone that is pro-US takes over, then he will absolutely have to get out of the country quickly and find another place for safety and refuge. North Korea is more stable, and less likely to fall. Kim Jong pretty much has that country tied down, and so does his son. So I can't imagine North Korea falling any time soon, so that would be the best long term solution, but who takes to live in North Korea? That is probably one of the worst places on earth to live. It is comparable to East Germany if anyone remember that society. I had a professor who visited East Germany during his years as an undergraduate, and he talked about how gloomy the country was. However, I can not believe that Gadhafi would still be in Libya. He should know from history that if they catch him, his hand will be put on a platter. You see the President of Tunisia was smart enough to know that, and he, his wife, and children boarded a plane and got out of dodge quickly. They currently live in Saudi Arabia. But if Gadhafi is still in Libya, his best bet is to fight to the death. Its been to go down in a storm of gun fire rather than to be beat down in the streets where people can do the most gruesome things....like cut off your genitals or something or cut your head off. Saddam wanted to be shot, but they hung him. Its not a good thing to be hung either, that is not a good way to die. At this point, it is hard to see him regaining control of the country, primarily because it is not just the rebels alone. If it were just the rebel, the revolution in Libya would have been put down a long time ago. It appears that what is pretty much happening is that NATO planes are bombing the crap out of every Libyan military unit that comes into sight, and the rebels are just walking right through the carnage. NATO bombs, and the rebels just walk right into the capital. Even in the most recent development where Gadhafi's compound was over ran by rebels, the compound held off the rebels until NATO carpet bombed it, and then rebels were pretty much just able to walk on him and clean up.

Its been 10 years since the death of the singer Aaliyah, who died in 2001 while making her album called Rock the Boat. I heard the news on the radio and saw it on the internet this morning. She was one of my favorite R&B artist at the time, and it was so tragic to hear that she had died. She died in a plane crash before too much equipment was placed on the plane headed to the US from Bahamas. It goes to show that life can end in an instant, but its good that everyone is remember her today. She had such great talent, and if she were alive today she would be on the same level with singers such as Beyonce.

All of those issues with the exception of disease are causes of capitalism. If you really think about it, there is no reason other than profit that people are starving. There is enough land and resources to feed everyone on the planet, but those resources are held by individual rather than society as a collective body. So a little poor girl in Somalia doesn't even have a plot of dirt, while a little girl in Europe is set to inherit a 7000 acres estate and a couple of millions. The fact is that the world is moved by profit. The question is not whether or not food in needed in Ethiopia, but rather is it profitable to feed the people of Ethiopia. So people would rather make profit, and ignore the suffering of others. They don't realize that it was only by chance that they were born in another geographical area to different parents. However, anything for profit. Just look at American slavery. It was all about profit. If you can get free labor, you have yourself an almost self-reliable money making machine. If someone has a machine that makes money, you're going to have a hard time convincing them to pursue moral correctness by giving it up. Look at the way companies treated employees in the last 200 years. Even today, American companies and people looking for a profit continue to enslave human beings in third world countries. I can't even list all of the American companies who have sweat shops in Asia. Those same sweat shops would be in the United States if it were not for unions and government policies. People will do anything for profit and just because someone is wearing a suit does not mean that they don't have the mentality of a bank robber. I find that most people have a hard time understanding the concept that their beloved cooperate leaders would enslave them if they could make profit by doing so. Just as a bank robber would shot you if you get in the way of the loot. Or how a pimp puts his girl on the corner to make money and beat her down if she refuses to sell his body. So no one really cares about world poverty or starvation because they are all about profit.Even when it comes to the environment, they don't care. There is a neighborhood in Alabama that is contaminated and killing the people living there because a company came in and put all kind of pollutants in the air and soil. The EPA is currently trying to find a solution, but you can't really move the air and soil, so the neighborhood is ruined and the people are dropping like flies. They are all dying, and I could not believe it until I saw it on the news over and over again. It was quite conceivable to me that a company would come in and contaminate a neighborhood to the point in which children playing in the dirt got cancer and the only solution that the EPA could give was to tell the children to wash their hands and keep them out of the grass and dirt. What about the air? People just don't believe that these companies are actually hurting the environment to that extend, and those hurting it don't give a darn anyway. As long as their pockets are heavy, and they don't live in the neighborhood.

Although this conversation is old, I will have to disagree. The best thing I can compare not raising the debt ceiling to is going to a 5 star restaurant, and then eating a five course meal on a credit card and then refusing the pay the credit card bill. If you are a nation who needs to borrow money in order to operate, you're going to be driven into deeper debt as a result of that default (also known as bad credit). No only that, but Wall Street would go crazy because that bad credit would not only effect the government, but also publicly traded companies, student loans, mortgages, and etc. Therefore, not raising the debt ceiling would actually drive not only the government into deeper debt, but the entire country. Yes, spending is a problem, but that should not handled in the budgetary process. The Congress approved the budget, borrowed the money, and is now talking about not raising the debt ceiling so that they can repay that debt. That is completely insane. However, what they should do is when drafting the next budget, make sure that it include deep cuts and appropriate tax increases so that the country's budget can find balance.

The different between China and...lets say the United States, is that in China people and private corporations wield less political influence. China is not a democratic society, so they can make smart and reasonable decisions without thinking about the next election. I am not saying that less democratic societies are better, but all people have interest and they tend to use the democratic system to push for their interest in government. It may be a corporation buying votes in the Senate and House of Representatives in order to maintain tax breaks or citizens organizing and marching against cuts in Social Security and Medicare. In China, which is much less democratic, politicians only have to worry about is maintain a cozy relationship with Communist party leaders. In other words, there is more political stability in China in relations to cooperation because the government has no repercussions for making sensible laws that conflict with individual and corporate interest. Even if you look at the recent debt debate in Washington, it was just two parties dancing to their political supporters rather than making sensible decisions to slash the country's deficit and fix the economy. The Republican for example, stuck to their ideological stand on taxes instead of facing reality and realizing that tax cuts on the wealthiest citizens should be revoked. Their argument that it would hurt the economy is moot because taxes on the wealthiest citizens under President Clinton, and the economy was stronger than ever and there was no deficit. The Democrats are also stuck on the ideological stand that programs of social uplift should not be touched. I will give President Obama credit for putting those programs on the table, but there were many Democrats who would not budge. Another reason why more democratic nations have issues with getting stuff done is because representatives are usually not much smarter than voters. Most people vote for those who they can relate to. If a representative is saying no more taxes, they will bite and vote for no new taxes without even research on if that is a good policy or not. There are some exceptions where representative lie to the voters, and then have enough sense to do the opposite. However, the politician who get elected and actually believe in their campaign promises will reflect the beliefs and ideologies of those who voters them in, and most voters are dumb. I hate to judge, but mankind is really stupid. For example, a recent presidential candidate said that she would make gas prices go down to $2, but she was never asked how she would do it. This was the same candidate who called President Obama a socialist, but it seems a bit socialist to control gas prices. No one pointed that out. There was another incident when I was in class and a student began to bash America for being a socialist nation. I refuted the idea that the US was a socialist nation with the exception of education and public safety. He went on to say that those two sectors alone was too much socialism, and after I pointed out that he was attending a public university he shut up. So if our college students don't even know that America isn't socialist, then how can we expect them to not stick to ideological points that has been driven into their heads from birth when it is does not serve as a benefit to the country?The debt problem won't be handled until people become educated and leave their ideological safe ground. Either that, or there will have to be a new generation of politicians who are willing to get voted out for making the right decisions. However, most politicians tend to make choices that benefit their careers rather than the well being of the country and people. I don't know much about European politics, but it seems to be a similar situation. I heard that in many countries in Europe, college education is largely a public purpose. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that they are stuck under a similar situation of uncontrollable government spending and political pressure that prevents cutting the budget because they don't have the money to fund social programs anymore.

Let me quickly give my opinion on the matter. I am not Socrates, but I will try to use logic as much as possible. Now, I believe that suicide is caused by one of two things. That is depression or insanity. I simply do not believe that as completely normal person wakes up one day and decide to end their life. It has been mentioned that people who are suicidal are stereotyped as either insane or depressed, but its because that is exactly what the majority of them are. People who commit suicide are unhappy with the world, their life, and themselves. It becomes so unbearable that they can not handle it. I also think that suicide is usually emotional more so than logical. I seriously doubt many people commit suicide as a result of an epiphany after deep thought. I doubt that the majority of suicides are caused by new insight or some sort of logical realization that death is good, and life is bad. So in a sense, suicides are a result of mental or emotional instability. Before this is denied, I think its important that reasons for suicide be listed. I think all of those reason can be attributed to an emotional or mental deranged individual. I think an issue that will arise in my argument thus far is the definition of insanity. One definitions that I found labeled insanity as extremely foolish and irrational. However, I do not use the word insanity in that context alone. Perhaps I use insanity for the lack of a better word, but I also use it in the context of someone whose thinking is completely incompatible with the beliefs, values, and morals that hold society together. I know that it has been noted previously that morals, values, and all of those good sounding word should not be used, as they supposedly amount to nothing. I must disagree. What hold society together is morals and values. Of course, human morals and values differ on some levels, however, all humans or at least the powerful institutions that regulate humans, have shared values on a basic level. It is morals and values that keep one man from killing another without a justifiable excuse. Most humans hold that value, and those who do not are incompatible with society and therefore are forced to cooperate through either force and fear, or be put away in order to uphold a society that is bind together. My definition of insanity is what it is because irrational can differ from what society view as right. It may be rational, in your view, to kill someone for stepping on your lawn. I believe that such an action could be rationalized. However, it the action conflicts with the values that are established for a functioning society to exist. So now that we have established that suicide is caused by depression or insanity, if suicide conflicts with the values that hold society together and it can not be put to an end through force, than the person is put away so that society can not be harmed. How can society be harmed by a person's decision to commit suicide? Because that person is a part of society, and as a part of society they are prevented from harming themselves. In addition, others in society who have a personal or emotional connection are temporary protected from the horrors of death.Of course, it makes little sense when closely examined, but it is the reality in my opinion. The world and it's standards do not always make sense to those of us who are not well connected with the values established by society, for those of us who are partially insane. I say it makes little sense because death is inevitable. However, analyzing that truth is dangerous for those who fear death. If death is inevitable, why are murders placed behind bars for speeding up the inevitable. And is the death penalty truly a punish if it was going to happen eventually anyway. Does the punishment amount to beating me down today instead of next week? Either way I will be beat down. So the entire argument is complex, and it all comes down to values and morality more so than logic. Even those who support suicide must hold the value that man is his own decision maker and should determine his own destiny. However, it can be argued that man is a social animal, and society collectively decides his fate. It can be argued that man has no right to individually make the decision of life and death when all of humanity is at stake. If it is the job of humans to reproduce, and reproduction keeps humanity going, as a social creature who is he to decide the fate of society? He is a slave of nature, and is just as much enslaved to life as he is to death. The truth is that there is no truth. When it comes to social questions, rationality and logic is based on values and beliefs shaped by life experiences. Should man fate be decided collectively or individually? There is no equation for the correct answer. Even if we drop the "should" there is still no truth. Is the fate of men decided collectively or individually? Is men fate decided at all? Who decides how a man thinks? Is it the educational system set up by society or the naturally independent thought of men? Does any one really know? My opinion? Rationality and logic is justification of belief systems, which are not always rational. In fact, it is obvious that anyway argument on the issue hangs on right and wrong. It hangs on values and beliefs. Is it right or wrong for someone to commit suicide? Is it right or wrong for someone to be prevented from commit suicide? This is really why I have no issue with religion. Humanity is absurd, so why is the believe in absurdity wrong? Maybe humanity is not absurd, but even if it is not absurd universally, it is absurd because on our knowledge and current capacity. Therefore, why is one level of absurdity unacceptable and living a life with no clear purpose acceptable. How is it any more absurd to live to die than it is to live for the purpose of having life externally? In fact, the first sound more absurd than the latter. So suicide could even be rationalized on a religious level. One side could argue that it is pointless to live because life has no purpose, and therefore suicide is the way for the sane. Another side could argue that life has a purpose, and the purpose is to serve a being in order to live externally in happiness, bliss, and riches (personal gratification). So my opinion on suicide is neutral. I accept it as a reality, but I do not have the logic, knowledge, or patience to compare values in an attempt to come to a conclusion of truth, and I don't really believe that there is a truth anyway - only more values and beliefs. I would have to base my entire opinion on what hold society together, but than I would have to tackle the question of if it is good or bad that society is held together...especially if humanity possibly does not have a purpose.