US soldier arrested at VA while seeking mental help

[Ruth]

Actually, the crux of the matter seems to be that the majority of people are woefully uninformed of exactly what goes on - thus they aren't in a position to 'care'. If they were informed, they likely would care and be outraged.

I don't agree. I think that's wishful thinking. People have to want to know, they have to choose to know. "Knowing" requires action, once you "know" you can no longer in good conscience continue to hide your head in the sand. Therefore, most people prefer to not know. For someone who doesn't wish to "know", you could shove the "facts" down their throats, and they would still find some way to deny or avoid them.

I think you are both right. We have to face it, some of our population would be outraged if they were informed. And... some just don't wish to know because they don't wish to care or be outraged (lets call them the ostriches). Many of our family members are the latter rather than the former. All just looking for a nice bit of sand to shove their collective heads into.

 

[Nawd]

On a search for information of theories on 9/11/01, I ran across this website. Which opened my eyes way more than they were already on issues I hadn't even considered. Like STS/STO, which eventually led me to studies of the Federal Reserve, which I had never even considered. Which led me to why the/a small percent of people whom control our and other governments seemed to have no empathy, and on and on from there!

My impression is that this site is for people who have a desire to learn and to be aware of information as part of a quest for Truth. I think this need is in almost everyone. But as Laura says (hopefully I'm quoting somewhat accurately) in some of the introductions into the podcasts; there is a 'truth' already made out for people seeking. Websites and mis-information already made for them personally. This is the way some people go and are satisfied. But sometimes they are not.

As for thinking that people have a predisposition for the lies and disinformation, I personally don't think that is the case. I think most people are somewhat aware that this world is 'off.' If they search that feeling out or not, is a matter of free will. But I do have the hope that if someone is looking, they will find.

People like myself, who stood in a Marine Corp office at 19 thinking I would serve the country, as I thought I knew something about the U.S. and of course I was thinking that joining such was 'fighting for freedom.' There was a lot that went into getting me to think the way I thought, but it thankfully didn't stick.

Lucky for me, I got a bad gut feeling about the place, and backed out before the papers were signed.

 

[Ryan]

Sigh. I really have no desire for this kind of personalized conflict, but rather than "walk away" (as I usually do when it descends to this),

"Descends" to what? You being called out on your subjective pronouncements?

I will TRY to clarify what I actually DID say vs what you perceive me to have said

What you did say is already in the thread. The responses are based upon what you said. Now you try to redefine your words by claiming that the "perceptions" of the people reading them are wrong. Nowhere in this attitude is even a hint of consideration that you might actually be wrong.

-- even though I probably will inevitably cause further "offence" by doing so:

Ah yes, the "you are offended" (ie, reacting emotionally) gambit. I've lost count of how many times I've seen that one played on this forum. Usually by people evidencing some form of pathology.

the Signs page was never created for a certain set of people. It never meant to speak to only those who could already see.

I didn't say or even remotely imply that it was.

"remotely imply"? Although Beau used different words, he is clearly referring the crux of the matter in your statement. But because it is not a clear cut "legalistic" logical equivalence, you simply just redefine what you meant and claim he misunderstood, perhaps even deliberately using the word "remotely" to further underscore his supposed "misperception".

If one already thinks that the vast majority of people are incapable of this no matter what you do, then what would be the purpose of writing comments in articles to point out the lies? ...What would be the purpose of Laura writing a 15 page editorial if the only thing that would come about is that those who can already see would understand it and for the rest it would just go over the top of their head?

I did not say anything even remotely resembling "the vast majority of people are incapable of this". It's not a question of CAPACITY. I said that the vast majority CHOOSE to not know. CHOOSING to remain ignorant and "unknowing" and NOT CHOOSING to seek knowledge does not in any way equate with INCAPACITY.

Another legalistic redefinition. How does what you say above match with the statement:

There's a big difference between someone saying "I don't know anything about that (and don't tell me because I don't want to know, it would turn my life upside down)", and someone saying "I've not heard anything about that yet, it's kind of scary and alarming, but tell me more, I want to know..." The former will not learn and know no matter how much information you feed them.

You ascribe free will to people who effectively have none. They have been so isolated from any Truth by this psychopathic reality that they are effectively walking around in a dark room blindfolded. Unless someone outside first shines a ray of light into the room, what chance do they have? This situation has nothing to do with either capacity, or choice.

It won't be done by pessimistically claiming that the sleeping masses are incapable of waking up and thus their is no purpose in trying.

Again, I did not say that AT ALL. I respectfully suggest that you re-read my posts and quote what I ACTUALLY SAID, rather than rely on your paraphrase of what you chose to read into them.

True, you did not categorically state that there was no purpose in trying. Beau has logically inferred what you left unstated. If the sleeping masses are incapable of being woken up by outside information (which you clearly state here):

I couldn't agree more. But it starts with a desire to learn, a willingness to expand one's horizon of knowledge. My point is simply that the majority of people do not have such a desire and willingness; due to their extreme STS focus, they choose to "not know", and it doesn't matter how much information you present them with, until they change their FOCUS, they will not "learn".

then it logically follows that anyone presenting outside information to the masses is attempting the impossible. This is a pessimistic position to take, because you cannot know that the sleeping masses are incapable of being woken up, because you are only one person. You are making assumptions and restricting possibilities.

Talk about "twisting". You invent a position that I never took and then attack it. That's not a useful discussion, it's a waste of time. That's why I walk away when it gets to this point. I have no desire, and see no point, to my spending time defending a position that I never took and/or endlessly trying to reiterate what I did say vs what I didn't say. I really don't know what else to tell you.

No, you just don't like that we are reflecting your negative, pessimistic conception of human nature back at you.

Since I'll probably be banned now (which is a shame), just let me say how much I've enjoyed my interactions on this board. And I apologize if I perceived this forum to be something other than what it is.

And finishing with a pity ploy. How appropriate. You are not pitiful. You are quite the clever predator. Maybe you'll see that one day, or maybe you already know?

 

[Color]

The majority of people in America obviously AGREE with the government that such people are "expendable", and of little value to society. "Hey," they reationalize, "nobody FORCED them to join the army, it was their CHOICE. What did they expect? A picnic?" (....)

...Because it is not "normal people" who are being "ground up". The vast majority of people are STS and they only care about themselves and theirs. (...)

First of all, who are you thinking about when stated: not 'normal people'? The same 'type' as the ones mentioned in above statement: 'the majority of people in America'? Or they are different groups/classifications? And fallowing with: 'the vast majority of people.... only care...' of which group are you talking about now?

When reading all this I come to this conclusions, from your statements/thoughts:

1) There is a group of not 'normal people' which are joining the army because they not know better and believing their government blindly or seeing that as some way of economical/surviving solution

2) There is a group of 'the majority of people in America' which knows better than joining the army, but are seeing the 1) type as "expendable" within the goal of containing their status and the way of the life, they have (are they also 'not normal people'? please specify)

3) There is a group of people which are guessing this whole picture is somehow 'wrong', but they are preferring not to dig deeper - cause it would acquire a lot of shocks and efforts ffw learning and changing their perception of 'reality' (are this 'normal people'?)

So, I see quite natural conclusion of this whole picture looking quite desperate. Lots of 'mayorities' and groups here, ending nowhere, if we are talking about 'waking up' and learning... The thing which discern it easily, from being such a pessimistic view of the world, is the possible way, (which was proposed and explained to you ,by other forum members, in many ways), is allowing a possibility of that 3) group to evolve. As the matter of fact, I don't see why any of the mentioned groups wouldn't have the ability and a great chance of evolving, further on their path. I don't perceive the life and creation itself to be locked up for good in one state. But from what you are saying and alluding here:

(...) Is someone HIDING other sources of information from them? No, they are simply not interested in other perspectives.

you don't see that to be very likely? And... you don't perceive the truth as being hidden from us, for a long time, through our academic teachings, mass medias and religions? You disagree with the perception of this whole world's governments putting an issues of having a bread on the table as everyday struggle & dumbing nations worldwide with 'time killers' such as TV - as tools of stealing your time from a chance to take a notice of important things, which one would consider and investigate more about otherwise?

Can you understand now why your statements here were understood and responded in a way:

No, you just don't like that we are reflecting your negative, pessimistic conception of human nature back at you.

and this words of yours:

(...) In order to KNOW, you must ACKNOWLEDGE. Your friends quote openly indicated that they were not willing to do that yet, that for the sake of their own sense of security, they still keep that information within the realm of PROBABILITY, rather than FACT. (...)

Are you implying that people which are taking time to wake up from a long sleep have to except new informations immediately as a FACT? This is really strange reasoning, cause I don't see how someone who's listening nothing but lies, all of their lives, are supposed to recognize and accept someone's claims immediately as facts? don't you think that COINTELPRO did an amazing job with each new step of human awakening - taking the discovered truth and mixing it with a bunch of lies? Don't you consider that as a possible huge stepping stone for even a true seeker? Or it was so easy for you to 'see through it all' and that's why you don't aloud an option for others to be deceived, on their way of seeking the truth?

Can you see how your words were taken, by simple reading and fallowing the points you made? It was not imposed on you, in any way... Actually, when this discussions started, I was thinking that admins were giving you a 'hard time', insisting on some thought you presented... but, from the further development of discussion I realized they 'caught' in your saying - what I was unable to see in the start, but it became obvious later. They were fallowing the line which could easily be simply discussed, instead of your heavy emotional reactions - which fallowed.

But if you are sincere about being here to learn and explore, then you should listen very carefully what's been said here, not just reacting as 'poor misunderstood me', which is an obvious program in you (most of us have that one, more or less obvious)... At least - I hope so. I hope you'll be able to re-read the whole thing and have

a willingness to step outside of one's self-absorbed perspective and experiences to consider the perspectives and experiences of others. For those who have the desire, the willingness to know, the information is available. No, it's not as easy as turning on your TV and there it is, it takes EFFORT to find out what is really going on.

It would be nice to see that effort, on your part, and to understand this is not a trial set up for you, but simply discovering some deep layers of programs within you, which we all have and are here to recognize them, through help of community effort.

 

[QueenVee]

OK, since some of you persist in telling me what my beliefs and intentions are, I will try again to clarify what I do and do not believe (and therefore had no intention to say):

I do NOT believe that the majority of people are INCAPABLE of waking up. I believe every single person on the faith of the earth is CAPABLE of waking up.

However, I DO believe that the majority of people are NOT WILLING to wake up, and CHOOSE ignorance as the safer alternative, the one that best needs their own personal immediate "needs". Obviously, everyone must eventually wake up. and will. As to whether the majority will in our lifetime -- I doubt it.

I do NOT believe that because relatively few people are willing to search for and find the truth, to wake up, that "it is not worth the effort" to try to help people to wake up. On the contrary. I believe that if you succeed in helping only ONE SINGLE PERSON wake up, then it has been more than worth the effort.

I do NOT believe that people must accept truth IMMEDIATELY, and that otherwise they are still "asleep". Obviously, they are in the process of waking up. However, they are not yet there until they pass the point of only considering the probability of something -- and that was the only point I was trying to make.

I believe you are all very well intentioned, and I understand why you feel the need to exercise vigilance (hyper-vigilance?) at keeping this forum true to its purpose. However, continuing to harp on and on about how much you know BETTER than I what I really believe and intend to say, no matter how many times I have clarified my thought to you, is not an effective means of persuading me to your point of view. You just appear stubbornly glued to your original perception and unwilling to even consider that you may have misconstrued, something we all do from time to time.

I'm still in the process of observing and trying to understand your methods and purposes here. However, I will make this comment, for what it is worth: There might be a more balanced method than the rather heavy-handed, bordering on hostile, approach to new posters which is perceived to be neccessary to keeping the forum free from distracting "noise". To so quickly brand and judge people as "manipulators" and "psychopaths", before you really have a chance to understand another's intentions and methods of communication, only serves to cheapen those words, dilute them from their real meaning. The quickness to name-calling and character attacks are also quite jarring and off-putting to new posters. As a method of keeping the forum a tightly closed group of "true believers", your current methods are sound. As a means of reaching those whom you wish to influence and persuade, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I know this post is not likely to meet with a favourable response, as it seems the only acceptable response when being "chastized" by the moderators is to say "You're right and I'm wrong, and I bow to your greater wisdom", whether one means it or not. But, nonetheless, this is very sincere response on my part, meant to explain myself and my current state of mind as openly and honestly as possible.

Yes, yes, I know, I am self-deluded, I do not know my own mind, I am manipulative, dishonest, pathological, etc etc, and you know me FAR better than I know myself. I got that part, so there's no need repeat it ad infinitum. I know those accusations to be inaccurate, and further repetitions of them are not likely to have any affect on me except further irritation and exasperation. But if there might be a small opening to come to some common and mutually-respectful ground on what we were initially discussing here -- if only to say we must agree to disagree -- I would welcome it.

In the meantime, I guess I will continue to post here from time to time, but endeavour to be much more careful in future. It is not my intent to offend or distract, but I am also quite incapable of pretending to be someone I am not in order to "fit in". As is quite obvious, I do not accept "whole cloth" every premise advocated by the SOTT site, but am always trying to learn and absorb more, from many different sources. If that makes me unsuitable as a forum member, I can understand that, and will stop posting should the moderators deem it necessary.

That's the best I can do. I hope it is enough.

 

[anart]

However, continuing to harp on and on about how much you know BETTER than I what I really believe and intend to say, no matter how many times I have clarified my thought to you, is not an effective means of persuading me to your point of view.

I don't think anyone is trying to persuade you to any point of view - this is not a debate. What has happened is that it has been pointed out when what you write is slanted or manipulative - nothing more. No one is saying you should think any differently, they are just saying that this is not the forum for such behavior.

You just appear stubbornly glued to your original perception and unwilling to even consider that you may have misconstrued, something we all do from time to time.

Have you considered that this describes your behavior to a 't'?

I'm still in the process of observing and trying to understand your methods and purposes here. However, I will make this comment, for what it is worth: There might be a more balanced method than the rather heavy-handed, bordering on hostile, approach to new posters which is perceived to be neccessary to keeping the forum free from distracting "noise". To so quickly brand and judge people as "manipulators" and "psychopaths", before you really have a chance to understand another's intentions and methods of communication, only serves to cheapen those words, dilute them from their real meaning. The quickness to name-calling and character attacks are also quite jarring and off-putting to new posters. As a method of keeping the forum a tightly closed group of "true believers", your current methods are sound. As a means of reaching those whom you wish to influence and persuade, it leaves a lot to be desired.

It's fascinating that the only people who make these types of statements are people who are unwilling or unable to accept that their understanding of things may not be correct. Time and time again this forum has experienced this phenomenon - and without exception it is the same type of thinking, walking hand-in-hand with self-importance, that results in this conclusion

I know this post is not likely to meet with a favourable response, as it seems the only acceptable response when being "chastized" by the moderators is to say "You're right and I'm wrong, and I bow to your greater wisdom", whether one means it or not. But, nonetheless, this is very sincere response on my part, meant to explain myself and my current state of mind as openly and honestly as possible.

Interesting again, because it seems that the only thing that would smooth your ruffled feathers at this point is for 'the moderators' to say, "you are right and we are wrong, queenvee" - so it seems you might be projecting here. Moderators do not want anyone here to say 'you are right and I'm wrong' - that is not the point - that is not how it works. To think that is the point says much more about your own state of mind than it does this forum.

The input to you has been offered in an attempt to allow you to continue to interact on this forum - and to learn something about yourself if you are interested in such a thing, and nothing more.

Yes, yes, I know, I am self-deluded, I do not know my own mind, I am manipulative, dishonest, pathological, etc etc, and you know me FAR better than I know myself. I got that part, so there's no need repeat it ad infinitum. I know those accusations to be inaccurate, and further repetitions of them are not likely to have any affect on me except further irritation and exasperation. But if there might be a small opening to come to some common and mutually-respectful ground on what we were initially discussing here -- if only to say we must agree to disagree -- I would welcome it.

And, again, at this point I ask for the fourth time: are you familiar with the work of G.I. Gurdjieff? Until you become familiar with his work and with the basic concepts upon which this forum is based - you will likely experience nothing but irritation and exasperation here - and post little more than noise. Please get up to speed if you intend to continue to interact on this forum - not for our sakes - for your own sake.

In the meantime, I guess I will continue to post here from time to time, but endeavour to be much more careful in future. It is not my intent to offend or distract, but I am also quite incapable of pretending to be someone I am not in order to "fit in". As is quite obvious, I do not accept "whole cloth" every premise advocated by the SOTT site, but am always trying to learn and absorb more, from many different sources. If that makes me unsuitable as a forum member, I can understand that, and will stop posting should the moderators deem it necessary.

That's the best I can do. I hope it is enough.

Quite frankly, until you become familiar with the work of G.I. Gurdjieff, the bulk of what you post on this forum will be noise. You are not equipped with the knowledge or vocabulary with which to productively contribute to the discussion here, especially considering that you've posted 110 times in three weeks. This is EASILY remedied, if you so choose, by simply getting up to speed. You are clearly intelligent enough to get up to speed, but you want to pick and choose the material that is covered here to match your own belief system - and this forum simply doesn't work that way - there are many, many forums out there that do work that way.

If you choose to not get up to speed, then there is really no reason for you to stay here and you will be much, much happier elsewhere.

 

[Beau]

There might be a more balanced method than the rather heavy-handed, bordering on hostile, approach to new posters which is perceived to be neccessary to keeping the forum free from distracting "noise". To so quickly brand and judge people as "manipulators" and "psychopaths", before you really have a chance to understand another's intentions and methods of communication, only serves to cheapen those words, dilute them from their real meaning. The quickness to name-calling and character attacks are also quite jarring and off-putting to new posters. As a method of keeping the forum a tightly closed group of "true believers", your current methods are sound. As a means of reaching those whom you wish to influence and persuade, it leaves a lot to be desired.

The above is a big no-no. We, the moderators, do what we do. You, the forum poster, are not a moderator. "Going meta" is not allowed. The term "going meta" refers to the trick of taking a debate/analysis/discussion to another level of abstraction. What you are doing above is another form of manipulation, whether you can see it as such or not doesn't matter. You are attempting to shift focus away from the topic of discussion It is against the rules of the forum.

 

[Cyre2067]

OK, since some of you persist in telling me what my beliefs and intentions are, I will try again to clarify what I do and do not believe (and therefore had no intention to say):

I don't think anyone told you what your beliefs or intentions were, merely gave you feedback based upon what you wrote. And no one needs you to rewrite your beliefs because they are already in writing in the proceeding pages of this thread.

The moderators do their best to point out our assumptions, programs, and gaps in critical thinking. They also point out manipulation which can often times be very subtle, so much so that we ourselves don't even see it. The whole point of this is to gain a more objective view which is based upon feedback from a group trying to achieve an objective view.

You last post, is definitely not even subtle in it's attempts at manipulation. Thus skepticism as to your intentions on this forum.

...I understand why you feel the need to exercise vigilance (hyper-vigilance?) at keeping this forum true to its purpose.

There is no hyperactivity by the mod's - they're merely fulfilling their function. You seem to have had a hyperactive response to them though.

There might be a more balanced method than the rather heavy-handed, bordering on hostile, approach to new posters which is perceived to be neccessary to keeping the forum free from distracting "noise". To so quickly brand and judge people as "manipulators" and "psychopaths", before you really have a chance to understand another's intentions and methods of communication, only serves to cheapen those words, dilute them from their real meaning. The quickness to name-calling and character attacks are also quite jarring and off-putting to new posters. As a method of keeping the forum a tightly closed group of "true believers", your current methods are sound.

There was no heavy-handedness or hostility, again this is what you percieve because you are so attached to your beliefs, as we say, your cup is full. Your use of quotes around noise is also manipulative, because that is infact what you are generating with these tirades. Anart had pointed out the same pattern in three other threads, so it wasn't a quick judgement either. No one labelled anyone a psychopath, no one called anyone names, and there have been no character attacks. Labelling your fellow forumites "true believers" is also disingenious, as anyone who has spent time studying the C's material knows it is not about 'true belief' but about attaining objectivity, facts, research, that speaks for itself. There is no belief, period.

i'll stop there and humbly suggest you read a copy of Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" because it gives a decent synopsis of G's Work and his ideas and thus our attempt at implementation here.

 

[j0da]

QV..I bet you are pretty much exhausted already. Just looking at your "stats" makes it obvious. Maybe you'd like to take a break? Go for a walk, do nothing whole day long, visit sauna, etc - you know, chill out. You've been firing your cannons here long enough to be a nervous wreck. Do yourself a favour - take some rest.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Because responding to all the posts here would take hours, I'm just going to respond to some of QueenVee's latest post.

OK, since some of you persist in telling me what my beliefs and intentions are, I will try again to clarify what I do and do not believe (and therefore had no intention to say):

Here's the problem, which has led to a lot of misunderstandings, both on YOUR part and the part of those trying to interpret your posts: Regardless of your intent, we are working with a limited medium. The clarity of your intent depends on the clarity of your WORDS. When the two do not match, misunderstanding and poor communication result. You do not always say what you mean, and you are constantly trying to tell us what you REALLY mean. A big part of the problem is how you express yourself.

To show how frustrating this is to those who read your posts, here's a way of looking at it: You say "A", while really meaning "B". When someone responds to "A" critically, you say "I really mean B!" Or if someone responds to point B, you will say, "But read my words! I clearly wrote A."

It doesn't help that you take criticism so personally, or that you have a deep need to be right. This is normal, to an extent. Everyone is egotistic and egocentric. Some more than others.

I'll try to respond to your latest attempt to let us know what you REALLY think. Hopefully this will help show you some of the false assumptions that are affecting your thought processes. When we are operating on false premises (ALL of us do, to varying extents) we will often reach false conclusions.

I do NOT believe that the majority of people are INCAPABLE of waking up. I believe every single person on the faith of the earth is CAPABLE of waking up.

But every single person on this earth does NOT have the capability to wake up. At least half the human population does not have the potential to overcome their rigid patterns of thought. The majority of humanity will never transcend their primary integration. This means that they will forever be stuck in their old patterns of thought.

Because of this false belief, you reach a moralizing conclusion: that these people CHOOSE their ignorance. Perhaps on some level they do, but on this level the do not even have the capability to choose. They are machines. Nothing more.

However, this does not mean that they are completely blind to certain things. If you present ANYONE with enough evidence that they are being victimized, they will react, contrary to what you said in your first reply to this thread. This does not mean they are "awake", simply that they have been bullied into reacting mechanically. In this way, if enough people accept that, for example, 9/11 was an inside job, they WILL react. This does NOT mean they will understand, or even that they love truth.

However, I DO believe that the majority of people are NOT WILLING to wake up, and CHOOSE ignorance as the safer alternative, the one that best needs their own personal immediate "needs". Obviously, everyone must eventually wake up. and will. As to whether the majority will in our lifetime -- I doubt it.

Here is your moralizing conclusion that is NOT based on fact. It is not that they are unwilling, it is that they are UNABLE. They do not possess the WILL to choose anything different. And no, everyone will NOT obviously wake up eventually. The majority will die machines. We have no way of knowing if they will EVER wake up, even taking reincarnation into account.

I do NOT believe that because relatively few people are willing to search for and find the truth, to wake up, that "it is not worth the effort" to try to help people to wake up. On the contrary. I believe that if you succeed in helping only ONE SINGLE PERSON wake up, then it has been more than worth the effort.

I agree. Truth is reason enough to continue. But you're still assuming that people actually possess a WILL. They do not.

A lot of the back-and-forth on this thread has stemmed from your own doublethink/conversive thinking. On the one had you have a naive and optimistic view of human nature; on the other you have presented a pessimistic moralizing interpretation on the same people. If you clear up your OWN thoughts, and work on presenting them clearly, you will not be misunderstood as often.

 

[PopHistorian]

Here's another horrific case featuring ridiculous "service connection" ratings for massive injuries. Ty Ziegel, horribly broken and disfigured, got a letter from the VA with those now-famous ratings. Shocking results.

_http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/15/wounded.marine/index.html

Once he got out of the hospital, he was unable to hold a job. He anticipated receiving a monthly VA disability check sufficient to cover his small-town lifestyle in Washington, Illinois.

Instead, he got a check for far less than expected. After pressing for answers, Ziegel finally received a letter from the VA that rated his injuries (in terms of service connection): 80 percent for facial disfigurement, 60 percent for left arm amputation, a mere 10 percent for head trauma and nothing for his left lobe brain injury, right eye blindness and jaw fracture.

"I don't get too mad about too many things," he said. "But once we've been getting into this, I'm ready to beat down the White House door if I need to."

freetrinity posted a video of Ziegel here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7185

More on Ziegel's story:
_http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/03/10/berman_photo/index_np.html
_http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1294008.ece
_http://www.wikio.com/news/Ty+Ziegel