suryaz

QUOTE]Originally posted by JRdd: Very interesting, Suryaz. I like how you explained how sound is the beginning of external manifestation, and how important it is for us to correct our use of language. Also I appreciate your assessment of seduction. Reading that it occurred to me that I do not actually think of men as seducing me when they make approaches, and that’s because I don’t let it affect me.

Valaya, The greatest miracle begins in sound – Nam-bhajan. Satyam too begins in sound Suryaz

Rishi: My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.” Suryaz: “not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi Maitreya/Alfred: Nooo, women don't practice seduction ,no way. Ha ha ha. That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West. Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation. I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious. Maitreya: If you want to be real and honest then at least admit that women do try to seduce men.I know men try to seduce women. If that fact isn't the most obvious basic thing to someone then this discussion has no hope. Maitreya: Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation.I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious. Surya: Maitreya/Alfred, Suryaz: You also do not get it? -- “seduction… is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.” Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation What?????????. Suryaz: If you believe an object pollutes your mind (titillation notion you addressed it as –this is again symbolic confusion and the shift in gaze to the “other” as an instrument of blame for the functioning of your own biological makeup: libido) – then we have to ask if your mind was not already polluted. You have to remember the notions belong to you. The object does not pollute? The conceptual pollution comes from the perceiver; not the object Suryaz: “To thine own self be true” Suryaz: (YES! I AM SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISBELIEF). Suryaz: It is an ethical principle we are talking about here. It can be projected onto race, gender, or onto any object or subject. Its aim is to use the “other” as a scapegoat; at the extreme it ends up as what is commonly called a “witch-hunt” (and the phrase “witch-hunt” is another example of the female cast-off as the “other”. – Do we ever address the attack on the “other” as a “wizard-hunt” – ask your self why?). (PS I use the term “witch-hunt” specifically to illustrate something of this –however this example is at another level of analysis) Suryaz: The discourse is about the deceptive use of language, the promotion of it, acceptance of it’ and even more shocking is the obvious non-compusmentus of it, so sadly displayed by many. Suryaz: Yes Telasiga you are right, Rishi is asking the wrong question. The agenda is to elucidate the course of deception not when it is in full bloom i.e. when it fully functions in the socio-cultural realm as accepted action or inaction (as the norm), but where it appears as a bud; i.e. in the realm of sound. Such use of language is the violation of truth in its very utterance. It sets a faulty foundation for the pursuit of truth. It cannot bring about honesty. Its only logical result is abuse (the scandalisation of the “other”), degradation (hypocrisy), deception (it carries with it a distorted idea of resolvence) i.e. misrepresentation (adhasya) etc., etc. Suryaz: As mentioned previously to Rishi, …It is WRONG, INACURATE, AND DISHONEST to shift the focus onto the “other” as an instrument of seduction to account for your own inbuilt seduction VIZ: your own libido. …it is WRONG to shift the gaze so as to create a more deceptive view – even if you were unaware of it. Suryaz: It is simply WRONG. Rishi: I'm not sure what you are referring to by "violence" here. I wasn't aware of committing any violent acts towards women, let alone justifying such behaviour. Perhaps you could elaborate? Suryaz: As mentioned above, the violence is in the use of language, and all that brings to bear. Madhu: Ok, enough of my theory of the root of misogyny. How about examining it's phenomenon. Would it surprise anyone if I were to say women can also be misogynistic? Take the woman who kisses up to the men by putting other women down. That is also misogynism. Madhu: Misogynism is an annartha, which, like pride et al, resides in the seeds of the heart and can sprout at any time and must be cleared out by the good gardener like any other weed. We don't get all in a ruffle about admitting other annarthas, so why so much defensiveness surrounding this particular one? I won't try answer that, except to suggest that perhaps it is the deepest enviousness, to deny the feminine self in the desire to be Krsna. Suryaz: Yes Madhavi, I agree, “Misogynism is an annartha, which, like pride et al, resides in the seeds of the heart and can sprout at any time and must be cleared out by the good gardener like any other weed.” Suryaz: And where to begin? We begin with sound. Through correctness in linguistic representation abuse can be nipped it in the bud. Through speaking honestly we created honest notions and/or rectify those notions left over from former disfigurations, conditionings (whatever). But the main thing is to breathe honesty not distortion. In so doing violence is curbed and ahimsa is restored. Suryaz

Reply by Suryaz: This is an interesting post and a very interesting use of language. . Otherwise put – For the most part of it, it is full of egotism, chauvinism and misogynistic intent of the most deplorable sort. It is full of adhasya. You present yourself as compassionate, humble and of course ever forbearing, the protector etc. etc., but you forgot the most basic thing, and your use of languages magnifies such. It is called honesty. “To thine own self be true”. Even Shakespeare knew that. The following is just one example from the post; but the whole post is set in the same linguistic framework and approach, at both macro and micro levels. “My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.” “not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi If your were truly honest to yourself, forbearing, humble and as perfect as you wish the reader to believe (although you do not directly say this), you would have said “not allow myself to be overcome to my own lust”. Instead you shifted the focus onto the female (creating the “other” as the character of lust) blaming her for your fall down (although you try to manipulate the language so that by common consent it appears, you so humbly say the opposite). Your chauvinism and misogynistic influences are evident here. You manipulate language to pull the wool over the eyes of most readers. Essentially you blame your girlfriend, although you say you do not. The first quality of a Brahman is satyum, is it not?. Read Foucault for some inspiration on this. He might teach you a thing or two about honesty and language usage. The use of language has had much to do with the way male-female relationships have been constructed in our society. Moreover is has much to do with the marriage breakdown and a relationship of mutual love (or the lack of it). To create a sense of the “other” as a form of lust, instead of being true to oneself, is to use the art of deception as an instrument of love (in your justification) - (which in itself is a contradiction in terms. It’s results are far from the art of love. More importantly, how can marriage (or any relationship for that matter) be fruitful if there are faulty foundations – whether gross or subtle. Can there ever be true renunciation or true association if honesty is not built into the discourse? Suryaz .................................... Thankyou for your kind words, Suryaz. Rishi: “…As JRdd has pointed out, it is beneficial to view these discussions from various viewpoints. Thus, I attempted, (rather miserably it appears), to add some food for thought, based upon my own experiences and from observing the experiences of others”. Suryaz: As mentioned previously “To thine own self be true” (satyam). Is this not the first quality of a Brahman? Suryaz: It seems you again missed this very basic point Rishi. The fact is your use of language is WRONG. You repeatedly make symbolic confusions and this indicates your willingness to accept something less than truth as a stance for justifying violence against others. The violence against another person is evident throughout your writing as you continue to shift the focus onto the other to secure your stance. Let us take a look. Rishi: It appears that you are reading into my words what you will. Suryaz: No Rishi, I do not read what I will into your words. I simply read your words. Your use of language is simply WRONG. It is WRONG, INACURATE, AND DISHONEST to shift the focus onto the “other” as an instrument of seduction to account for your own inbuilt seduction VIZ: your own libido. Rishi: I am willing to accept correction, (if I have erred) as well as some degree of reasonable and mild chastisement. (I have no interest in continuing this dialogue openly if such hostile attacks are to continue.) Not out of humility, (if I were actually humble, I would probably just ignore this attack instead of trying to defend myself!), but with a sincere mood of attempting to address many of these important issues, (which all too often seem to degrade into either extreme misogyny or it's opposite, unrelenting male-bashing, neither of which will serve any positive, constructive purpose for illuminating the topic under discussion.) Suryaz: Hummmm I wonder why? Rishi: As far as your example above, no, I was not at all blaming my fiance for the fall downs. If anything, she was by far the better devotee, being that she felt more guilty and depressed about the fall downs than did I. For that, I respect her, and am able to understand why she would feel the need to find a scapegoat, to blame me for the fall downs. Yes, I did use the word "seduce". But I did not mean that in the sense that I was blaming her or faulting her in any way. Suryaz: That is just the point Rishi, Why even use such violations in your use of language? It seems you do not even realise the root of your injustice. It seems you are oblivious to the root structure of your own deception. In so doing your self-deception becomes your justification. Instead of working towards creating such ‘justification’ why not challenge the origin of your stance; a stance that has caused much suffering for the “other”. A stance that not only ultimately violates the self, but is the origin of violence itself. Suryaz: Words and consciousness are so intricately related – Yes Rishi so intricately relate that reality follows on from them. Moreover they are reality. Rishi: I've never thought of myself as a misogynist, as you say. In fact, 20 years ago, when most husbands were ordering their wives around to "do this", "do that", "get me this", "get me that", I used to try to encourage my friends to ask nicely, instead of ordering and demanding, often treating their wives like slaves. Suryaz: What ??????????? And why should such abuse even be present? And you can begin to rectify yourself and others by not using deceptive language. Rishi: I'm sorry you have misunderstood my words. I wonder if this isn't a result of your own conditioning? Suryaz: This is an old argument – let us keep to facts VIZ it is WRONG to shift the gaze so as to create a more deceptive view – even if you were unaware of it. You are aware of it now. Rishi: There are, after all, people who are outright male-bashers and truly believe that 95% of the devotee men are incorrigible abusers of women. While I fully acknowledge that abuses and mistreatment have been committed, I also like to think that most devotee men, in my age group anyway, (note that I use the word devotee here, as I am not referring herein to those who may externally *appear* to be devotees) have matured over the years and have perhaps learned some valuable lessons, the hard way, (usually through painful divorces) that if they want a happy marriage, they'd better get their act together and treat their wives with honor, love, and respect. Rishi: I am by no means a humble devotee. Nor did I ever state or try to convey that I was a "protector". Quite the opposite, I failed miserably in protecting my fiance from our fall downs, as I have already admitted. Rishi: (Is it possible that you are the one who is "manipulating" the language here?) But I am trying to be honest in these discussions. Suryaz: Yes here we go again Rishi. Did you know it is not unusual for people obsessed with loyalty to “X” (whether it be sexism, racism etc.)? to wear pins proclaiming themselves "X-ists". This is an indication, of course, of the lack of seriousness with which X is treated. Cheers Suryaz [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-26-2001).]

"That which is beyond our power of conception is called acintya, inconceivable. It is useless to argue or speculate about what is inconceivable. If it is truly inconceivable, it is not subject to speculation or experimentation. Our energy is limited, and our sense perception is limited; therefore we must rely on the Vedic conclusions regarding that subject matter which is inconceivable. Knowledge of the superior nature must simply be accepted without argument. How is it possible to argue about something to which we have no access?" (Bhaktivedanta Swami TLC: Introduction)

Originally posted by Rishidas It is very enlivening to learn that even a few compassionate words in cyberspace can provide a soothing, healing effect on our wounded hearts. You raise a valid point regarding men being qualified both spiritually and materially before entering into married life. This hits home quite effectively as it pertains to my own fears/hesitations in pursuing marital bonds (both in the past and in the present.) However, I might also add that in my own experience, as well as in observing the experiences of many of my godbrothers, it is often the case that one may be qualified spiritually, but not materially. Or vice versa. Or even that he may be qualified in both ways, but there may be some mild shortcomings which may be a source of disappointment for his wife. For instance, I have a dear friend who has faithfully provided for his wife and family for 2 decades, being the sole wage-earner of the family. (Keeping in mind that in this day and age, it generally requires 2 incomes to support a household.) And at the same time, he is a pukka brahmana who follows the 4 regs, chants his rounds, and studies scripture, encouraging his family members to do the same. His wife loves to travel to various festivals and places of pilgramage, and my friend always seems to somehow find a way to scrape up the money to finance these trips, even if he is unable to accompany her due to the demands of work. And yet, at one point just after returning home from one of her trips, she exploded on her husband viciously, lashing out with anger that was extremely hurtful and senseless. You see, her husband, not being perfect, (who is!), has this "defect" of being somewhat shy. He is not so much inclined to give public classes or lead public kirtans, despite the fact that he is quite eloquent and has quite a melodious voice. She faulted him for not being "like the other men." But of course, who can say what "defects" the other men may have which would offset their outgoing natures, (which I guess is an attractive quality to women.) The point being, I think that sometimes devotee women may be setting their expectations just a bit too high. Most of the devotee men I know are sensitive and caring souls, and are quite dedicated to their wives and families. Still, there is disappointment. But I suppose that is the nature of this material world. I had an experience many, many years ago of having an engagement with a nice devotee lady. As is quite often the case when men and women associate together closely, falldowns are sometimes inevitable. In my own case, although infrequent, they were mutual. Afterwards, I would have to endure some heavy chastisement because I failed to "protect" her from her lust, that it was my duty to prevent any falldown, no matter how seducing or lusty she may have been. That I was directly responsible for her breaking the regulative principles. My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced. I would prove to her that I cared enough about her to "protect" her from her lust, even though my own spiritual strength was quite pathetic, to say the least. So, when the next "encounter" was about to happen, I didn't allow it to go further than a simple hug. The result? She became furious, and refused to speak to me for a period of time, thinking that I no longer found her to be attractive or desirable. It was a no-win situation. Another example: A good friend of mine was faithfully married for many years (despite the fact that his wife had strained the marriage by once having had a brief affair with another man during their marriage). They had their occassional falldowns, (as is often the case), and the wife, like my ex-fiance, always blamed her husband. At one point, she even left him completely, to re-join the brahmacarini ashram, ultimately divorcing him. The result? Within a year, she had left the ashram to become a cocktail waitress and was sleeping freely with many karmi men, and taking cocaine. She was obviously a lusty woman, and clearly would have been better off sticking by the side of her loving husband, neophyte weaknesses and all.... Sincerely, rishidas ................................... Reply by Suryaz: This is an interesting post and a very interesting use of language. . Otherwise put – For the most part of it, it is full of egotism, chauvinism and misogynistic intent of the most deplorable sort. It is full of adhasya. You present yourself as compassionate, humble and of course ever forbearing, the protector etc. etc., but you forgot the most basic thing, and your use of languages magnifies such. It is called honesty. “To thine own self be true”. Even Shakespeare knew that. The following is just one example from the post; but the whole post is set in the same linguistic framework and approach, at both macro and micro levels. “My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.” “not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi If your were truly honest to yourself, forbearing, humble and as perfect as you wish the reader to believe (although you do not directly say this), you would have said “not allow myself to be overcome to my own lust”. Instead you shifted the focus onto the female (creating the “other” as the character of lust) blaming her for your fall down (although you try to manipulate the language so that by common consent it appears, you so humbly say the opposite). Your chauvinism and misogynistic influences are evident here. You manipulate language to pull the wool over the eyes of most readers. Essentially you blame your girlfriend, although you say you do not. The first quality of a Brahman is satyum, is it not?. Read Foucault for some inspiration on this. He might teach you a thing or two about honesty and language usage. The use of language has had much to do with the way male-female relationships have been constructed in our society. Moreover is has much to do with the marriage breakdown and a relationship of mutual love (or the lack of it). To create a sense of the “other” as a form of lust, instead of being true to oneself, is to use the art of deception as an instrument of love (in your justification) - (which in itself is a contradiction in terms. It’s results are far from the art of love. More importantly, how can marriage (or any relationship for that matter) be fruitful if there are faulty foundations – whether gross or subtle. Can there ever be true renunciation or true association if honesty is not built into the discourse? Suryaz [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-24-2001).]

Maitreya, Why limit this abortion to the female and the “helpless souls as they are being scraped out of the "mothers" womb.”? Bhagavatam says the soul is within the seminal discharge of the male - We could ask: How much of male sperm gets abused (wasted, aborted) day and night – consciously or unconsciously in the wakened or in dream states. Remember it is the soul we are talking about not the body. Given that context we could also ask if the notion of the abortion of the soul in its progress towards human development is of the natural biology to the male? And Jagat, we could also argue as you have done with regard to BB and the terrorists bombing thing: ‘the basic principle is the same” it is “different only in degree.” Given the Bhagavat view of universal order of things, could we not argue that the male of the species are in themselves natural suicide bombers – killing million of soul’s birth process? – (God injected these poor souls into the sperm of the male for the function of birth, and they callously eject millions of them, sometimes times daily just so they may gain some sense pleasure) But it is OK guys do not freak out just yet. Given our present technology every living DNA cell of male and/or female bodies are potential people; residing places of the soul in its development in human birth. But that is not all, every time we scratch ourselves, shower, groom ourselves etc. etc., we abort many millions of soul's residing places - if only we would give them the opportunity to come full term This leaves us to ask what of collateral damage or abortion in war or abortion clinics –after all the above are “different only in degree.” Moreover is it not that “the basic principle is the same.”? Cheers [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-21-2001).]

Satyaraja, Vrindavan is in your heart. That is where the pilgrimage starts and finishes Moreover I doubt it if this war is a war of the nuclear type. Although such weapons are there they are superficial in the operation. In this war arsenals and nuclear power are of the armour not the weapon. The weapon in this war is the intellect. The aim is to unpick the terrorist fanaticism and their networks of mobilisation. While it is true that terrorists will become more fanatical and aggressive as some retaliation from the opposition will without a doubt occur. It may also be that “no more planes would come to Bharata for several years” . However, I doubt it if this is because of the armour (nuclear arsenal). Rather it is more likely to be because of threat and orchestrations of terrorist fanaticism (you know the sort, suicide bombing by perhaps your next door neighbour). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-18-2001).]

Certainly my good man – for all I are worth. But the best is within you. It is for you by your own free will to do this. And that is what this war is about. It is about protecting the essential nature of the jiva, the soul. And part of that is free will - freedom in choice making is a must if bhakti (or love) is to triumph. Otherwise how can there be bhakti there is only slavery

Well then BB - you be that gentleman. It is for you to set that standard. You be that man of perfect ksatriya power and grace combined. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-17-2001).]

I am not your brother, I am your sister. And chivalry is a must for the ksatriya spirit to excel and bloom. Now my good man let that diamond heart of yours shine out amid the roar [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-17-2001).]

BB as I mentioned once before: you are without a doubt a rough diamond and I admire your ksatriya spirit (in the right place). But I also have to ask: do you think it is becoming to speak of Bhaktavasya as ****? We need you to be a man of power and tolerance (chivalry) right now – forget now any unnecessary clout [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-17-2001).]

Satyaraja you just do not get it. This is not a war against Allah or any religious denomination that does not attack the intrinsic nature of the soul (Viz:free will). It is a war against slavery in the guise of religion. And the use of fanatical terrorism to insure its orchestration and peoples commitment to such [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-17-2001).]

Oh!!! How did that happen? I must have hit reply at the wrong post. What a bizarre paraprax. But it is kind of fitting in a way. Must be to remind BB et al of the ksatriya dharmic perspective as they grooms up. Again thanks MC and Valaya for your support Was is not that Bhisma saw the arrows of Krishna's wrath as arrows of bliss and roses? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-17-2001).]

Thanks MC and Valaya for your support. Was is not that Bhisma saw the arrows of Krishna's wrath as arrows of bliss and roses?

The following I found on RISA - It is a bit specialised in content - However, given the attacks in New York last week, it helps show the extremes to which these fanatics extend themselves to the notion of the "other". Regardless as to what the "other" is believed to be. In their own families the "other" is "women" - (it is a gender thing). On a larger scale however, the "other" is any person or persons who will not submit to them. ............................................. "Madhu, the government of Afghanistan, is waging a war upon women. Since the Taliban took power in 1996, women have had to wear burqua and have been beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even if this means simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to death by an angry mob of undamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm(!) while she was driving. Another was stoned to death for trying to leave the country with a man that was not a relative. Women are not allowed to work or even go out in public without a male relative; professional women such as professors, translators, doctors, lawyers,artists and writers have been forced from their jobs and restricted to their homes. Homes where a woman is present must have their windows painted so that she can never be seen by outsiders. They must wear silent shoes so that they are never heard. Women live in fear of their lives for the slightest misbehavior. Because they cannot work, those without male relatives or husbands are either starving to death or begging in the street, even if they hold Ph.D.s. Depression is becoming so widespread that it has reached emergency levels. There is no way in such an extreme Islamic society to know the suicide rate with certainty, but relief workers are estimating that the suicide rate among women must be extraordinarily high: those who cannot find proper medication and treatment for severe depression and would rather take their lives than live in such conditions. At one of the rare hospitals for women, a reporter found still, nearly lifeless bodies lying motionless on top of beds,wrapped in their burqua, unwilling to speak, eat, or do anything, but slowly wasting away. Others have gone mad and were seen crouched in corners,perpetually rocking or crying, most of them in fear. When what little medication that is left finally runs out, one doctor is considering leaving these women in front of the president's residence as a form of protest. It is at the point where the term "human rights violations" has become an understatement. Husbands have the power of life and death over their women relatives, especially their wives, but an angry mob has just as much right to stone or beat a woman, often to death, for exposing an inch of flesh or offending them in the slightest way. Women enjoyed relative freedom: to work, to dress generally as they wanted, and to drive and appear in public alone until only 1996. The rapidity of this transition is the main reason for the depression and suicide; Women who were once educators or doctors or simply used to basic human freedoms are now severely restricted and treated as subhuman in the name of right-wing fundamentalist Islam. It is not their tradition or culture,' but it is alien to them, and it is extreme even for those cultures where fundamentalism is the rule. Everyone has a right to a tolerable human existence, even if they are women in a Muslim country.........."

Who said these war/criminal terrorist acts are about “America or any other country or political party”. Leyh, it is certainly not a nationalist thing – it has to do with abuse, terrorism, fanaticism and illicit religious illustration. Is to fight these abuses not service to Krishna? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-16-2001).]

Then Valaya: "I thought it was 50" Gaurachandra: "I was sure it was 70" So what do us females face when they enter that heaven? Without a doubt it could only be a number of terrorists. Yes MC "it is hell alright" [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-15-2001).]

Does that go for us females also??? I hope not This heaven sounds like not only one of fire (whether heaven or hell) but one of "bastardisation" also (PS Jndas in Australia “bastardisation” is a legal term for abuse) [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-14-2001).]

Humm RandOm, RandOm, I love that post. But did not the author know that surly by their actions, hell could only be "heaven" for those /somethings/ That in a way answers your question JR (that was my intended perspective - sorry about the dis-clarity) [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-14-2001).]

I am always bewildered as to why Prabhupada gave so much power to the GBC (who always wanted to "change" things). Or to his “authorised persons” (whom he knew chane things) Why did he include in his society this wobbly system of management? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-14-2001).]

"Seems safe though to pray for compassion, enightenment, harmony, and a resurgence of interest in the spirituality." I do not think so What in the real world are call heinous activities - otheres (fanatics) see it as an act of "compassion", done with humbleness to created greater "haromony and the resurgence of interest in spirituality" (whether forced or otherwise in this paradigm it can still be seen (by the fanatic) as a religious act) [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-14-2001).]

Hummm??? That is a bit of a sticky one. As I understand Prabhupada mentions - of the 4 regulated principles illicit sex is the most sinful. Bhagavatam also suggests the spirit souls (jivas) line up to take birth within the male sperm. Given that context, abuse of male sperm infers the abuse of human birth and death or the natural development thereof. Can the sperm count be equal in all males? I do not think so. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 08-28-2001).]