i like the name kumar. but henceforth i'll call him k. like the writers do when they want to indicate a distinct individual without revealing his true identity, or to make him more mysterious. i don't want to be bad, but i think i need to talk about what happens to me and around me and i hope that my intentions are good. i don't know about that. i only know i want to keep a record. and i don't want to harm anyone. k. said he walked into this shot but i actually put him in. he wanted to be unpublished because he feels he is being persecuted. yet he's out there like me, and i don't think appearing here will do any harm. in fact i have no idea, but i can't imagine harm will come to anyone from appearing on this blog. who knows in this world. sorry k. i can call you k. but i can't leave you out altogether. i just don't understand why you'd want to have a website without putting anything personal about yourself. he says his site doesn't need any personal identity, nor any space for reply, for it is truth. i wonder, isn't that dangerous thinking? what truth do we really have but in ourselves? therein lies his trouble i suspect. sorry mister k. but i don't believe it, i think you have to put yourself in the words, they come from you, not some divine revelation. truth must be individual. truth must be shared. truth must be dialogue. please don't be mad at me if you read this. maybe the fact that it is a dog blog will give me cover to tell my truth. let me be untouchable, like unto the dogs.

looking back over this i see a lot of i's. maybe conversely to k. i put too much of the i in.
but that's me. too much and too little. or none. you decide which is right.