The other day, DJ, one of the Algerian visitors to Skypeland who likes to talk for hours about how superior Islam is, was extraordinarily pleased with himself. According to DJ, Muslims will never get the swine flu because they do not eat pork or other pig products. DJ was incredibly smug about this.
It is interesting to me that DJ is not alone. The Russian government has banned the importation of Mexican pork. The Chinese press has published instructions for how to safely cook pork to avoid swine flu. The Egyptian government has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of pigs. The only pig in all of Afghanistan, in the Kabul Zoo, has been quarantined. And so on.
Although characters like DJ like to brag for hours about how intelligent they are and how much they know, and how they are inherently superior to all nonMuslims, this is a perfect example of how backwards and ignorant they really are.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Jonathon Pollard was part of an official program to share information
Skypeland can give one all kinds of interesting insights into people and their beliefs. Today I heard the claim that Jonathon Pollard, one of the most damaging spies the United States has ever had, actually did nothing wrong. According to this person in Skypeland, Pollard is really innocent, and only shared US information with the Israelis because he was part of a special government program to do so. So I asked if this is true, what Pollard was doing in prison, and why he was still in prison? Of course, there was no answer.
I guess sometimes, people's beliefs do not quite fit the evidence.
I guess sometimes, people's beliefs do not quite fit the evidence.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Unequal
Skypeland is a crucible in which one can examine the interactions of males and females in great detail (for example, see the blog post "Men and Women"). In the Western world, and particularly in the US, it is politically correct to believe that men and women not only should be treated the same, but are treated the same and are identical in all other aspects, including abilities and interests.
However, as nice as this fantasy is, it really bears no resemblance to reality. An easy way to explore this is to consider flirting between men and women. Western women seem to have no problem making very racy and provocative comments to men in Skypeland, both in voice and in text, but then get offended if men reply in any way that is even vaguely reminiscent of the tone of the woman's statements. Not only have I observed this directly myself in several circumstances over my time in Skypeland, but other males have complained about this to me.
As an example, the lovely K has a very enticing picture on herself on Skypeland, and often makes flirtatious comments to D. This has escalated over the weeks, but D often told K he was afraid of being too forward and felt he had to be proper and a gentleman with K. However, things recently came to a head when K sent D a message asking him to read an essay posted on Craig's List, entitled "Just Fuck Me". This essay basically complains that western men do not treat women appropriately. Western men have all become metrosexuals and are too polite and politically correct, according to the author of the essay, and instead she craves a man that will just tell her he wants to fuck her, and then pushes her into some dark corner and then just takes her, hard and rough and fast, over and over. D was startled by this suggestion from K, and so felt slightly emboldened. D decided it was therefore safe to compliment K a bit more, in a slightly more aggressive fashion, and therefore sent a message to K that she is a "gorgeous babe and a MILF". Predictably, K seemed extremely offended and hurt by this response by D. D felt that Kcame close to blocking D for being so bold.
As ridiculous as that story sounds, this script gets played out over and over with other men and other women, both in Skypeland and in real life. G, a young man tells me that V frequently sends him text messages such as "I am going to mb now, brb", where "mb" is an abbreviation for "masturbate", and "I have a beaver for you" and responds to comments of G that a project is "coming along" with statements like, "like to cum?". However, if G ever flirts back, V is offended and annoyed with G.
Another example I have heard of is the story of H, and a newcomer to the room, the lovely IJ. When IJ saw H's picture, she said he was a "handsome devil". When H saw IJ's picture, he was stunned by her beauty. As attracted as H was to IJ, he found out that her ancestry was almost identical to his, and her character seemed to be similar as well. She and her ancestors shared many physical features with H's family. So, H jokingly stated that it was not a bad good idea for H to breed with IJ, since they were too genetically close and possibly cousins. Nevertheless, IJ became annoyed with H over an unrelated matter, and proceeded to badmouth him at every opportunity, accusing him of "pathetically hitting on her" dozens of times. H observed this in amazement, knowing that the records of conversations with IJ that he had would show a far different picture, and even paint IJ in a very negative light. But, although IJ portrays herself as an ardent feminist, she demands and expects unequal treatment in the arena of male-female relations. A lesbian, under no such constraints or expectations, would have had no qualms about calling IJ's bluff and holding her up to public derision. However, H feels restrained out of some sort of chivalry. At least at the moment.
Another episode that I have run across is that of SS, who is trying to get work as a model, and has compiled a very racy portfolio of pictures of herself in lingerie. Her Skypeland profile picture is a closeup of a very shapely posterior, or as she says, her "bum". SS has showed these very outlandish pictures to my friend Y. However, Y, probably cleverly, has avoided making any but the blandest possible comments about these pictures to avoid upsetting SS. Perhaps SS is disappointed not to get a bigger response, but at least she is not angry at Y, so that is for the best.
Although the anonymity and the casual atmosphere in Skypeland can enhance this phenomenon, it also happens in real life.
* I dated an FBI agent who invited me to her place, and then told me not to make any moves on her since she was "packing heat". As soon as I could, I ran out of there. She followed me to my car and I just quickly shook her hand and drove off. Later she complained bitterly that I had not shown any interest in her or even kissed her.
*A young lady I had a crush on for years was finally single, and I finally asked her if she would have a problem if I made a pass at her. She said she would like that, and so I touched her hair when we were walking back along the ocean from a brunch. She became incensed and then brought it up over and over and over and told me what a pervert I was. I never talked to her again after that. She sent me messages, but by then I had decided she was a bit too unstable to talk to.
*A woman I had taught exercise classes with invited me to take her away after her MBA exams for a 10 day trip through the desert in Arizona. I flew to California and paid for a rental car and hotel rooms with two double beds and for meals, but it went very badly. The entire trip, she refused to do more than sullenly grunt one word answers to questions. She seemed very unhappy, and I could not guess why. I tried everything I could to cheer her up and to see what was wrong; did she have a new boyfriend? had the exams gone badly? was she ill? was she upset? was she angry? sad? having a fight with friends or family? She wouldn't answer. Finally, she was sitting on her bed, and I was on mine. She uttered the longest statement I had heard from her in ten days, "You know what I really like? I really like to have my feet rubbed". I, being completely stupid, stood up and took one step towards her bed. She screamed at me, at the top of her lungs, "Don't you fucking touch me". She was so upset she vomited all over herself, although she had not had any alcohol and had not been feeling ill before this. While she puked up her guts in the motel toilet, I drove around Tucson looking for an all-night drugstore to find something to settle her stomach. I wondered, what on earth am I doing here? I was a bit annoyed, so the next morning I took her back home across the desert at about 90 miles per hour. This young lady was furious because I seemed to have developed a poor attitude, and might not want to go to a party she had scheduled with a large number of her friends and their boyfriends. I did not go to the party, of course, but she begged and pleaded for months for a second chance. I stupidly gave her a second chance, and she acted even worse. I decided at this point it was better to just ignore her, although she continued to send me letters and photographs of her in scanty outfits for years after this.
I could list dozens of other similar episodes I have heard of or experienced, but I think it is very common for women to be forward, and then get enraged when men actually react in any way except to ignore the woman's flirtation. On the other hand, it is also very common for women to constantly be disappointed when men ignore their advances. In the politically correct culture that has been constructed in the West, particularly in the US, no matter what a male does, he is wrong by definition.
Much of the rest of the world takes a different approach. For example, Italian men flirt with every woman, both young and old. Italian women I have met feel very ugly in the US when they do not get the same treatment from most American men. American women who visit Italy often feel incredibly offended when Italian men whistle at them, and return to the US fuming and wanting to drop nuclear weapons on Italian cities to get even. However, in some ways, the Italian approach and those of other older cultures around the world are in some ways far simpler and clearer, with less nonsense than what we have in modern American culture.
Addendum
According to K, she never came close to blocking D. What K did not like was the juxtaposition of the word "mother" with the term "fuck" in the acronym, and K would have been much happier to have been called a "BILF" (A new acronym for Bitch I'd Like to Fuck) or even "CILF".
However, as nice as this fantasy is, it really bears no resemblance to reality. An easy way to explore this is to consider flirting between men and women. Western women seem to have no problem making very racy and provocative comments to men in Skypeland, both in voice and in text, but then get offended if men reply in any way that is even vaguely reminiscent of the tone of the woman's statements. Not only have I observed this directly myself in several circumstances over my time in Skypeland, but other males have complained about this to me.
As an example, the lovely K has a very enticing picture on herself on Skypeland, and often makes flirtatious comments to D. This has escalated over the weeks, but D often told K he was afraid of being too forward and felt he had to be proper and a gentleman with K. However, things recently came to a head when K sent D a message asking him to read an essay posted on Craig's List, entitled "Just Fuck Me". This essay basically complains that western men do not treat women appropriately. Western men have all become metrosexuals and are too polite and politically correct, according to the author of the essay, and instead she craves a man that will just tell her he wants to fuck her, and then pushes her into some dark corner and then just takes her, hard and rough and fast, over and over. D was startled by this suggestion from K, and so felt slightly emboldened. D decided it was therefore safe to compliment K a bit more, in a slightly more aggressive fashion, and therefore sent a message to K that she is a "gorgeous babe and a MILF". Predictably, K seemed extremely offended and hurt by this response by D. D felt that Kcame close to blocking D for being so bold.
As ridiculous as that story sounds, this script gets played out over and over with other men and other women, both in Skypeland and in real life. G, a young man tells me that V frequently sends him text messages such as "I am going to mb now, brb", where "mb" is an abbreviation for "masturbate", and "I have a beaver for you" and responds to comments of G that a project is "coming along" with statements like, "like to cum?". However, if G ever flirts back, V is offended and annoyed with G.
Another example I have heard of is the story of H, and a newcomer to the room, the lovely IJ. When IJ saw H's picture, she said he was a "handsome devil". When H saw IJ's picture, he was stunned by her beauty. As attracted as H was to IJ, he found out that her ancestry was almost identical to his, and her character seemed to be similar as well. She and her ancestors shared many physical features with H's family. So, H jokingly stated that it was not a bad good idea for H to breed with IJ, since they were too genetically close and possibly cousins. Nevertheless, IJ became annoyed with H over an unrelated matter, and proceeded to badmouth him at every opportunity, accusing him of "pathetically hitting on her" dozens of times. H observed this in amazement, knowing that the records of conversations with IJ that he had would show a far different picture, and even paint IJ in a very negative light. But, although IJ portrays herself as an ardent feminist, she demands and expects unequal treatment in the arena of male-female relations. A lesbian, under no such constraints or expectations, would have had no qualms about calling IJ's bluff and holding her up to public derision. However, H feels restrained out of some sort of chivalry. At least at the moment.
Another episode that I have run across is that of SS, who is trying to get work as a model, and has compiled a very racy portfolio of pictures of herself in lingerie. Her Skypeland profile picture is a closeup of a very shapely posterior, or as she says, her "bum". SS has showed these very outlandish pictures to my friend Y. However, Y, probably cleverly, has avoided making any but the blandest possible comments about these pictures to avoid upsetting SS. Perhaps SS is disappointed not to get a bigger response, but at least she is not angry at Y, so that is for the best.
Although the anonymity and the casual atmosphere in Skypeland can enhance this phenomenon, it also happens in real life.
* I dated an FBI agent who invited me to her place, and then told me not to make any moves on her since she was "packing heat". As soon as I could, I ran out of there. She followed me to my car and I just quickly shook her hand and drove off. Later she complained bitterly that I had not shown any interest in her or even kissed her.
*A young lady I had a crush on for years was finally single, and I finally asked her if she would have a problem if I made a pass at her. She said she would like that, and so I touched her hair when we were walking back along the ocean from a brunch. She became incensed and then brought it up over and over and over and told me what a pervert I was. I never talked to her again after that. She sent me messages, but by then I had decided she was a bit too unstable to talk to.
*A woman I had taught exercise classes with invited me to take her away after her MBA exams for a 10 day trip through the desert in Arizona. I flew to California and paid for a rental car and hotel rooms with two double beds and for meals, but it went very badly. The entire trip, she refused to do more than sullenly grunt one word answers to questions. She seemed very unhappy, and I could not guess why. I tried everything I could to cheer her up and to see what was wrong; did she have a new boyfriend? had the exams gone badly? was she ill? was she upset? was she angry? sad? having a fight with friends or family? She wouldn't answer. Finally, she was sitting on her bed, and I was on mine. She uttered the longest statement I had heard from her in ten days, "You know what I really like? I really like to have my feet rubbed". I, being completely stupid, stood up and took one step towards her bed. She screamed at me, at the top of her lungs, "Don't you fucking touch me". She was so upset she vomited all over herself, although she had not had any alcohol and had not been feeling ill before this. While she puked up her guts in the motel toilet, I drove around Tucson looking for an all-night drugstore to find something to settle her stomach. I wondered, what on earth am I doing here? I was a bit annoyed, so the next morning I took her back home across the desert at about 90 miles per hour. This young lady was furious because I seemed to have developed a poor attitude, and might not want to go to a party she had scheduled with a large number of her friends and their boyfriends. I did not go to the party, of course, but she begged and pleaded for months for a second chance. I stupidly gave her a second chance, and she acted even worse. I decided at this point it was better to just ignore her, although she continued to send me letters and photographs of her in scanty outfits for years after this.
I could list dozens of other similar episodes I have heard of or experienced, but I think it is very common for women to be forward, and then get enraged when men actually react in any way except to ignore the woman's flirtation. On the other hand, it is also very common for women to constantly be disappointed when men ignore their advances. In the politically correct culture that has been constructed in the West, particularly in the US, no matter what a male does, he is wrong by definition.
Much of the rest of the world takes a different approach. For example, Italian men flirt with every woman, both young and old. Italian women I have met feel very ugly in the US when they do not get the same treatment from most American men. American women who visit Italy often feel incredibly offended when Italian men whistle at them, and return to the US fuming and wanting to drop nuclear weapons on Italian cities to get even. However, in some ways, the Italian approach and those of other older cultures around the world are in some ways far simpler and clearer, with less nonsense than what we have in modern American culture.
Addendum
According to K, she never came close to blocking D. What K did not like was the juxtaposition of the word "mother" with the term "fuck" in the acronym, and K would have been much happier to have been called a "BILF" (A new acronym for Bitch I'd Like to Fuck) or even "CILF".
Dr. Hisham Tillawi
An occasional celebrity who visits Skypeland is the "esteemed" Dr. Hisham Tillawi, who has a doctorate from a place called "Brunel University". A little investigation will show that Brunel University is an unaccredited school operating out of the Caribbean Island of St. Kitts. Dr. Tillawi spent a month on the tropical beaches of St. Kitts earning his degree, and remembers this time under the palm trees fondly.
Dr. Tillawi is a Palestinian immigrant to the US, and spends a fair amount of time making radio show presentations on low wattage radio stations and on internet radio stations. He often takes callers, and answers questions. His main agenda is to promote anti-Jewish and anti-Israel material and viewpoints. He is very close friends with notorious Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke, and associates with a variety of skinheads, white supremacists and neoNazis. He has a sidekick on his current weekly internet radio show that is a well known white supremacist member of Storm Front, a neoNazi organization. I guess he has made allegiances with these groups because they will help him with his anti-Jewish propaganda. Somehow he does not quite understand what these same groups think about Arabs and other little brown people. This does not seem to bother Dr. Tillawi, if he is even aware of it.
One discussion group in Skypeland has made it a practice to call in to Tillawi's radio show, over and over, every week. Because Dr. Tillawi has such a small audience, the Skypeland callers almost always are featured on the air, completely dominating Dr. Tillawi's show. Dr. Tillawi has once in a while realized that he is being "punked" or tricked, but most times his show is ruined and taken off-topic by the constant stream of callers from Skypeland with made-up ridiculous questions.
Recently, the story about a member of the UAE royal family torturing someone he believed had cheated him in a grain transaction has been in the news. This was captured on video, which has been broadcast on ABC News in the United States. The UAE prince shoved an electric cattle prod up the man's anus, and beat him with a board with nails in it. The tortured man's mouth was stuffed with sand. Salt and vineagar were poured on the wounds. Finally, the prince drove his car backwards and forwards over the man's body.
Dr. Tillawi tried vainly to explain that this never happens in the Muslim world, and that this is part of a plot by the CIA to make Arabs look brutal and stupid. Tillawi constantly likes to talk about evil the United States is because they made prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq stand naked with hoods over their heads, and that this constitutes torture. It is interesting how Tillawi and other Arabs like to ignore incidents like that captured on the video broadcast on ABC News, yet complain bitterly when they feel that the US has made the slightest mis-step, playing on public sentiments expertly.
The Storm Front sidekick to Dr. Tillawi tried to explain away this torture video by stating that "If this was so major, it would be on a major US news outlet like Fox News", somehow relegating ABC News to a minor media outlet.
The Skypeland callers constantly steered the discussion off-course. One of the best was a German caller who calmly stated that anally violating a man with a "cattle production" was no big deal since it was a common sexual practice in Germany. Another said that there was evidence that the UAE prince had been secretly trained in these torture techniques in the US by Blackwater. Others brought up nonsense about Algeria and anal torture. The Storm Front sidekick was so frustrated that he claimed "what is it about this anal stuff? Even that Jewish psychotherapist Sigmund Freud was focused on the anus..."
Ah yes, whatever the problem is, it always has to be blamed on the Jews somehow.
Dr. Tillawi is a Palestinian immigrant to the US, and spends a fair amount of time making radio show presentations on low wattage radio stations and on internet radio stations. He often takes callers, and answers questions. His main agenda is to promote anti-Jewish and anti-Israel material and viewpoints. He is very close friends with notorious Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke, and associates with a variety of skinheads, white supremacists and neoNazis. He has a sidekick on his current weekly internet radio show that is a well known white supremacist member of Storm Front, a neoNazi organization. I guess he has made allegiances with these groups because they will help him with his anti-Jewish propaganda. Somehow he does not quite understand what these same groups think about Arabs and other little brown people. This does not seem to bother Dr. Tillawi, if he is even aware of it.
One discussion group in Skypeland has made it a practice to call in to Tillawi's radio show, over and over, every week. Because Dr. Tillawi has such a small audience, the Skypeland callers almost always are featured on the air, completely dominating Dr. Tillawi's show. Dr. Tillawi has once in a while realized that he is being "punked" or tricked, but most times his show is ruined and taken off-topic by the constant stream of callers from Skypeland with made-up ridiculous questions.
Recently, the story about a member of the UAE royal family torturing someone he believed had cheated him in a grain transaction has been in the news. This was captured on video, which has been broadcast on ABC News in the United States. The UAE prince shoved an electric cattle prod up the man's anus, and beat him with a board with nails in it. The tortured man's mouth was stuffed with sand. Salt and vineagar were poured on the wounds. Finally, the prince drove his car backwards and forwards over the man's body.
Dr. Tillawi tried vainly to explain that this never happens in the Muslim world, and that this is part of a plot by the CIA to make Arabs look brutal and stupid. Tillawi constantly likes to talk about evil the United States is because they made prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq stand naked with hoods over their heads, and that this constitutes torture. It is interesting how Tillawi and other Arabs like to ignore incidents like that captured on the video broadcast on ABC News, yet complain bitterly when they feel that the US has made the slightest mis-step, playing on public sentiments expertly.
The Storm Front sidekick to Dr. Tillawi tried to explain away this torture video by stating that "If this was so major, it would be on a major US news outlet like Fox News", somehow relegating ABC News to a minor media outlet.
The Skypeland callers constantly steered the discussion off-course. One of the best was a German caller who calmly stated that anally violating a man with a "cattle production" was no big deal since it was a common sexual practice in Germany. Another said that there was evidence that the UAE prince had been secretly trained in these torture techniques in the US by Blackwater. Others brought up nonsense about Algeria and anal torture. The Storm Front sidekick was so frustrated that he claimed "what is it about this anal stuff? Even that Jewish psychotherapist Sigmund Freud was focused on the anus..."
Ah yes, whatever the problem is, it always has to be blamed on the Jews somehow.
A little gentleman
One of the more frequent visitors to Skypeland recently has been a Brit who goes by the name LF. LF has a reputation for offering to drop his drawers on web cam for anyone who wants to watch. LF likes to do this for not only females, but males as well, and will purportedly pleasure himself for his web audience with only minor encouragement. LF is quite proud of his status as a "web pervert", it seems.
What is even more amusing about LF is his approach to "chatting up" the ladies in the room. LF talks in a murmur, and has a fairly deep voice. He gets on a roll that women just seem to eat up. Some laugh, but they listen in rapt attention anyway. A typical LF "cyber mating call" goes something like this:
"Well darlin I work in Nottingham for Nissan, an' ah operate me heavy equipment. I drive hot rivets to get a tight fit, and that is the best, you know what ah mean? Ah like to show a lass me twig 'n berries because that is what it is all about, 'in it? Want to see my stimulus package, lovey? Just check out me undercarriage and I will inspect your unmentionables and inflatables and give them the proper attention an maybe have a wee bit of a sniff in those nether regions. Then we can have us a bit of pipe fittin'. How about we meet up an' have us a bit of a Devonshire burberry surprise? Ah will just air it out a bit, and then you can give me a "hows your father" and an under and over and round the thicket, home to granny's house we go with a basket of goodies..."
Most women seem to listen to this nonsense with fascination. British women in particular seem to be drawn to it, perhaps because it is similar to what they heard from the lads in High School. To me it just sounds ridiculous and I cannot understand why women give him the time of day.
Addendum
I was recently surprised to find out that LF believes that the US is as bad as Nazi Germany. LF's evidence for this that the US states that they do not want to rule the world, and therefore Americans are clearly Nazis, according to LF. LF complains that the US is unfair to everyone on the planet earth, and therefore the US should pay to place desalination plants all over the world, in every country. LF alleges that the US only assists countries if they can get something for it since they are "building a worldwide empire".
LF also believes that the US is bankrupt and is 85% owned by China. However, LF still demands that the US should pay billions and billions of dollars to the poor around the world. LF however does not believe that Europe or the UK or China should pay anything at all to help the poor.
Even though LF works for Nissan, he claims Nissan is not a capitalist corporation. Even though LF lives in the UK, he does not believe that the UK or Europe is socialist. He gave us his definitions for the words "socialism", "fascism" and "capitalism" and they were complete nonsense. LF said that Fascists and Capitalists are essentially identical, and are defined as just being people that are greedy. He said Socialists were people that are not greedy. When we tried to explain the details of each of these concepts to him, he dismissed it as too complicated, and eventually left in a tiff.
At first LF had seemed fairly rational, even if he was a bit of a pervert. A little probing, and all of a sudden LF's true nature was revealed. Like almost every other Brit attracted to a particular corner of Skypeland, LF seems to be a strident anti-American. Interesting.
Addndeum II
I have just heard an amazing story from a friend F in Skypeland, When F first encountered LF in Skypeland, it was in a discussion with a group describing about different household items they have shoved up their rectums. One after another described how they relished shoving kitchen implements up their bungholes. A young lady waxed ecstatic about how nice it was to shove garden tools up her pooper. F said that this gave an entirely new meaning to the word, "ho".
Addendum III
Recently LF has been becoming more bold, asking the women in a political discussion room to "get your tits out". He also proudly urinated in a jar on a webcam, and then drank it for his audience of women. LF proudly admits that he is a bit of a "peeping Tom" as well and likes to spy on women when they are in private. I have no idea how extreme LF can get, but he seems to have fewer limits than many others.
As you can imagine, a lot of rumors go around about LF. One lady has told me she believes he likes to "wank it in lady's shoes" and ignore the lady herself. Another told me that LF is into "Brazillian fart porn" (see this website for some examples). A female friend privately calls LF "Mr. Wee Wee Hands" (copyright by Luscious Legs the Licorice Lover from NZ) for his widely varied and somewhat distasteful sexual proclivities. I thought it was funny enough it needed to be highlighted.
Recently LF said to a young lady in a public forum in Skypeland that he wanted to "spread her crack across his face". This was not well-received, as one can imagine.
Today I heard him asking the lads in the room what color underpants they were wearing.. The only reason he could see for the space program was to investigate what it is like to have sex in space. He starting speaking in a falsetto voice, pretending to be a girl to flirt with the guys in the room.
Addendum IV
Today Mr. Wee Wee Hands told me that he is an alcoholic. Mr. Wee Wee says that he has to have a beer or two when he first wakes up, every morning. Ah yes.. such an impressive character.
What is even more amusing about LF is his approach to "chatting up" the ladies in the room. LF talks in a murmur, and has a fairly deep voice. He gets on a roll that women just seem to eat up. Some laugh, but they listen in rapt attention anyway. A typical LF "cyber mating call" goes something like this:
"Well darlin I work in Nottingham for Nissan, an' ah operate me heavy equipment. I drive hot rivets to get a tight fit, and that is the best, you know what ah mean? Ah like to show a lass me twig 'n berries because that is what it is all about, 'in it? Want to see my stimulus package, lovey? Just check out me undercarriage and I will inspect your unmentionables and inflatables and give them the proper attention an maybe have a wee bit of a sniff in those nether regions. Then we can have us a bit of pipe fittin'. How about we meet up an' have us a bit of a Devonshire burberry surprise? Ah will just air it out a bit, and then you can give me a "hows your father" and an under and over and round the thicket, home to granny's house we go with a basket of goodies..."
Most women seem to listen to this nonsense with fascination. British women in particular seem to be drawn to it, perhaps because it is similar to what they heard from the lads in High School. To me it just sounds ridiculous and I cannot understand why women give him the time of day.
Addendum
I was recently surprised to find out that LF believes that the US is as bad as Nazi Germany. LF's evidence for this that the US states that they do not want to rule the world, and therefore Americans are clearly Nazis, according to LF. LF complains that the US is unfair to everyone on the planet earth, and therefore the US should pay to place desalination plants all over the world, in every country. LF alleges that the US only assists countries if they can get something for it since they are "building a worldwide empire".
LF also believes that the US is bankrupt and is 85% owned by China. However, LF still demands that the US should pay billions and billions of dollars to the poor around the world. LF however does not believe that Europe or the UK or China should pay anything at all to help the poor.
Even though LF works for Nissan, he claims Nissan is not a capitalist corporation. Even though LF lives in the UK, he does not believe that the UK or Europe is socialist. He gave us his definitions for the words "socialism", "fascism" and "capitalism" and they were complete nonsense. LF said that Fascists and Capitalists are essentially identical, and are defined as just being people that are greedy. He said Socialists were people that are not greedy. When we tried to explain the details of each of these concepts to him, he dismissed it as too complicated, and eventually left in a tiff.
At first LF had seemed fairly rational, even if he was a bit of a pervert. A little probing, and all of a sudden LF's true nature was revealed. Like almost every other Brit attracted to a particular corner of Skypeland, LF seems to be a strident anti-American. Interesting.
Addndeum II
I have just heard an amazing story from a friend F in Skypeland, When F first encountered LF in Skypeland, it was in a discussion with a group describing about different household items they have shoved up their rectums. One after another described how they relished shoving kitchen implements up their bungholes. A young lady waxed ecstatic about how nice it was to shove garden tools up her pooper. F said that this gave an entirely new meaning to the word, "ho".
Addendum III
Recently LF has been becoming more bold, asking the women in a political discussion room to "get your tits out". He also proudly urinated in a jar on a webcam, and then drank it for his audience of women. LF proudly admits that he is a bit of a "peeping Tom" as well and likes to spy on women when they are in private. I have no idea how extreme LF can get, but he seems to have fewer limits than many others.
As you can imagine, a lot of rumors go around about LF. One lady has told me she believes he likes to "wank it in lady's shoes" and ignore the lady herself. Another told me that LF is into "Brazillian fart porn" (see this website for some examples). A female friend privately calls LF "Mr. Wee Wee Hands" (copyright by Luscious Legs the Licorice Lover from NZ) for his widely varied and somewhat distasteful sexual proclivities. I thought it was funny enough it needed to be highlighted.
Recently LF said to a young lady in a public forum in Skypeland that he wanted to "spread her crack across his face". This was not well-received, as one can imagine.
Today I heard him asking the lads in the room what color underpants they were wearing.. The only reason he could see for the space program was to investigate what it is like to have sex in space. He starting speaking in a falsetto voice, pretending to be a girl to flirt with the guys in the room.
Addendum IV
Today Mr. Wee Wee Hands told me that he is an alcoholic. Mr. Wee Wee says that he has to have a beer or two when he first wakes up, every morning. Ah yes.. such an impressive character.
Moderation
One feature of Skypeland that is important for determining the tone of a discussion is moderation, or the lack therefore. If there is no control of a discussion area, people will soon start to play music, whisper offensive statements, fill the room with static, blow whistles, or just scream obscenities. Some groups exist only to disrupt conversations and believe they are successful if they have interrupted a useful or pleasant conversation.
A perfect example is a group lead by P, known semi-affectionately as "Swede fags". The "Swede fags" were given this moniker because P, a young 20-something Swede and neoNazi, lives on government assistance which he supplements by servicing a Swedish gentleman in his seventies. P and his associates interrupt discussions in Skypeland when they make all kinds of off-topic comments, play recordings and music and do whatever they can to cause problems in a room. For example, P likes to make all kinds of statements in a falsetto voice, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "I want hamburger and Coca Cola" and "yeehaw" and "George W. Bush". P plays recorded sounds of a Swedish woman reading text and white supremacy thrasher rock music. If P is not stopped, he will stop all meaningful conversation in a room.
A room can be "overmoderated" however. Some try to stamp out all dissent, disagreement and objectionable behavior and obtain what some call a "kumbaya" room. This is fine, except kumbaya rooms quickly die because they are so boring. No one wants to sit and discuss how much they hate the Jews with 3 other people who feel the same way they do, or at least for very long or very often. No one wants to listen to the same lecture about how 911 was an inside job from the same 3 people who all agree with the theory in all respects, with no disagreement or exploration of the controversy. No one wants to hear about how superior Islam is, or how lousy Islam is, for hours on end, day after day, with no dissent and no discussion allowed. Some rooms are so filtered that the only topics allowed are the weather, or what people had to eat that day. It quickly comes very tedious.
However, moderation is a fine art, and everyone does it differently. I like to very judiciously turn on and off people's microphones to force them to answer questions, in the style of a deposition, or a modified Socratic method. One of the most prominent difficulties in approaching controversial subjects in Skypeland is that people who want to "debate", and present their side, will often refuse to answer hard questions. They will just change the subject. If you ask them about why Muslim nations have such high illiteracy rates, they will immediately respond with something disconnected, such as claiming that "George Bush is a war criminal". If you ask them about high death rates in the Muslim world because of low water quality standards (basically, shit in their drinking water), they will refuse to answer the question and redirect the discussion towards the glory of the Islamic Caliphate over 1000 years ago. If you ask them about the beating of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban for laughing in public, they will not give any reply, but will talk about how the "bible is a book full of shit". It is sort of difficult to make any progress or reach any ressolution or conclusions, in this sort of situation, as you can imagine. Nevertheless, people are "topic changers" love to brag to all and sundry about their "debating skills". Somehow, I have never noticed this sort of approach in Oxford style debates. I think that it makes those who adopt the "topic changing" tactic look sort of stupid, but they believe that it makes them look like intellectual giants. Good moderation can avoid this problem, but few moderators are able or willing to force people to answer questions in a discussion. And so, the discussion in most cases almost always wanders off into the weeds.
Another complaint about moderation can focus on the apparent bias of the moderator. In one room that advertises itself as "fair and unbalanced", many discussion participants argue bitterly that it is not appropriate that they do not get equal time to present their position on how much they hate Jews and Israel, as those presenting the pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli perspective. One complained that the moderator was censoring those who used the word "kike" more often than those who used the word "nigger". When it was pointed out that the room promises nothing but an "unbalanced" discusssion, they became indignant, since they thought that "unbalanced" meant all points of view should be presented with equal weight, and maybe their own particular agenda should even be favored. Efforts to try to describe the meaning of the word "unbalanced" just seemed to fail, since they refused to believe that "unbalanced" actually meant just that, "unbalanced". Fancy that.
Another approach to room moderation was taken by H from India. H had a long memorized spiel he would just repeat endlessly, like a mantra or a chant. He will ask a participant where he comes from, and then launch into a diatribe, which goes something like, "Well you are from one of the most stupid countries on earth because your politicians are corrupt and your currency is going down, down down, and your literacy rates are terrible. What have you contributed to the world? You have an inferior military and your leader is clearly a moron. You are hated around the world and your women are
whores and sluts and ugly pigs. You have such limited and inferior intellectual capacity that you use profanity. You do not even know your own language. You should know English; English is your language and yet you do not know it. Your education system is awful and your cars constantly break down and are gas guzzlers. What have you done for the environment? Nothing, this just proves my point you see..." He does not pause for breath. At most he might allow the person he is talking to one or two seconds to respond. When they do not say anything, or manage to get only one word out, he cuts them off and continues. Often he turns off their microphones so they cannot respond. As you can imagine, when he is not moderating, the response from those who have been waiting for years to "get even" is pretty ugly. For years he has been nicknamed as "hiney", which is a shortened form of his Skype name. Interestingly, the other day we found out that he did not know what a "hiney" was. Well, what goes around, comes around sometimes in moderation.
Some with more extreme points of view can be effectively banned from a given room if the moderators choose to do so. One recent example I observed is a supposedly "very nice guy" who has opened several internet discussions with, "we should throw all Jews in the ovens". This had the unfortunate effect of creating a certain image for this gentleman, and he was promptly disinvited from further participation in that Skypeland forum. All entreaties to allow him to speak and "debate" so far have been denied, and he is miffed about this apparently. This has to be done carefully, because some of the most interesting characters in Skypeland are some of the most offensive. I would have little fodder for this blog if all the kooks, flakes, hate-mongers, malcontents, inebriated and mentally deranged were driven out of all open discussion venues.
However, a room moderator has to be a bit careful in the tone that they set for the room, particularly when it comes to setting rules. For example, if two people are arguing, and one complains that the other is constantly interrupting them, the moderator should not demand that only one of the participants be allowed to speak without interruption, and not accord the other the same courtesy. If P is calmly reading a newspaper article, and C is making huge fart noises and screaming "B, B, B, B, 'ere come 'ere you fucking cunt, you dirty child molester, I will hunt you down and kill you, you filthy mother fucker, I am going to tear your head off and shit down your throat you fucking weasel, you dirty wanker, fucking ponce, B, B, B...", the moderator has to be careful how they deal with the situation. Turning off the microphones of both P and C, and then lecturing P dozens of times over the next few days that P is a jerk and an asshole and should stop his obnoxious behavior will create a certain image for the moderator. P might even start to get a slightly negative impression of the moderator, to the detriment of further interactions. If F is having a dispute with Q, allowing Q to complain for hours in uninterrupted fashion about how awful F is without according F a few minutes to present his or her side of the story will create a certain tone. This is further compounded if when F attempts to make a comment about Q, he is met with a hail of criticism and cursing, such as "goddamnit F, I have heard enough of this shit from you, you should stop it immediately, etc". This approach might tend to cause F to believe that the moderator really does not value F's participation, and fully accepts Q's position. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
Moderators seem to be accorded a certain amount of respect and prominence in Skypeland, even if it is unearned and completely unjustified. As in real life, there is a tendency for power to corrupt, and arrogance among moderators often develops. Interestingly, I have heard some Skypelanders trying to present their side of a dispute to a moderator in the hopes of gaining his "cyber favor", as though he was acting as some sort of "cyber judge". I have even listened as a moderator squirmed uncomfortably after having been described as a "father figure" to some Skypeland participants who were roughly the same age as him.
Moderation is clearly vital to maintain a lively environment in Skypeland. However, it is incredibly easy for moderators to completely destroy a room by allowing in too much chaos, or by driving away their most interesting participants.
A perfect example is a group lead by P, known semi-affectionately as "Swede fags". The "Swede fags" were given this moniker because P, a young 20-something Swede and neoNazi, lives on government assistance which he supplements by servicing a Swedish gentleman in his seventies. P and his associates interrupt discussions in Skypeland when they make all kinds of off-topic comments, play recordings and music and do whatever they can to cause problems in a room. For example, P likes to make all kinds of statements in a falsetto voice, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "I want hamburger and Coca Cola" and "yeehaw" and "George W. Bush". P plays recorded sounds of a Swedish woman reading text and white supremacy thrasher rock music. If P is not stopped, he will stop all meaningful conversation in a room.
A room can be "overmoderated" however. Some try to stamp out all dissent, disagreement and objectionable behavior and obtain what some call a "kumbaya" room. This is fine, except kumbaya rooms quickly die because they are so boring. No one wants to sit and discuss how much they hate the Jews with 3 other people who feel the same way they do, or at least for very long or very often. No one wants to listen to the same lecture about how 911 was an inside job from the same 3 people who all agree with the theory in all respects, with no disagreement or exploration of the controversy. No one wants to hear about how superior Islam is, or how lousy Islam is, for hours on end, day after day, with no dissent and no discussion allowed. Some rooms are so filtered that the only topics allowed are the weather, or what people had to eat that day. It quickly comes very tedious.
However, moderation is a fine art, and everyone does it differently. I like to very judiciously turn on and off people's microphones to force them to answer questions, in the style of a deposition, or a modified Socratic method. One of the most prominent difficulties in approaching controversial subjects in Skypeland is that people who want to "debate", and present their side, will often refuse to answer hard questions. They will just change the subject. If you ask them about why Muslim nations have such high illiteracy rates, they will immediately respond with something disconnected, such as claiming that "George Bush is a war criminal". If you ask them about high death rates in the Muslim world because of low water quality standards (basically, shit in their drinking water), they will refuse to answer the question and redirect the discussion towards the glory of the Islamic Caliphate over 1000 years ago. If you ask them about the beating of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban for laughing in public, they will not give any reply, but will talk about how the "bible is a book full of shit". It is sort of difficult to make any progress or reach any ressolution or conclusions, in this sort of situation, as you can imagine. Nevertheless, people are "topic changers" love to brag to all and sundry about their "debating skills". Somehow, I have never noticed this sort of approach in Oxford style debates. I think that it makes those who adopt the "topic changing" tactic look sort of stupid, but they believe that it makes them look like intellectual giants. Good moderation can avoid this problem, but few moderators are able or willing to force people to answer questions in a discussion. And so, the discussion in most cases almost always wanders off into the weeds.
Another complaint about moderation can focus on the apparent bias of the moderator. In one room that advertises itself as "fair and unbalanced", many discussion participants argue bitterly that it is not appropriate that they do not get equal time to present their position on how much they hate Jews and Israel, as those presenting the pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli perspective. One complained that the moderator was censoring those who used the word "kike" more often than those who used the word "nigger". When it was pointed out that the room promises nothing but an "unbalanced" discusssion, they became indignant, since they thought that "unbalanced" meant all points of view should be presented with equal weight, and maybe their own particular agenda should even be favored. Efforts to try to describe the meaning of the word "unbalanced" just seemed to fail, since they refused to believe that "unbalanced" actually meant just that, "unbalanced". Fancy that.
Another approach to room moderation was taken by H from India. H had a long memorized spiel he would just repeat endlessly, like a mantra or a chant. He will ask a participant where he comes from, and then launch into a diatribe, which goes something like, "Well you are from one of the most stupid countries on earth because your politicians are corrupt and your currency is going down, down down, and your literacy rates are terrible. What have you contributed to the world? You have an inferior military and your leader is clearly a moron. You are hated around the world and your women are
whores and sluts and ugly pigs. You have such limited and inferior intellectual capacity that you use profanity. You do not even know your own language. You should know English; English is your language and yet you do not know it. Your education system is awful and your cars constantly break down and are gas guzzlers. What have you done for the environment? Nothing, this just proves my point you see..." He does not pause for breath. At most he might allow the person he is talking to one or two seconds to respond. When they do not say anything, or manage to get only one word out, he cuts them off and continues. Often he turns off their microphones so they cannot respond. As you can imagine, when he is not moderating, the response from those who have been waiting for years to "get even" is pretty ugly. For years he has been nicknamed as "hiney", which is a shortened form of his Skype name. Interestingly, the other day we found out that he did not know what a "hiney" was. Well, what goes around, comes around sometimes in moderation.
Some with more extreme points of view can be effectively banned from a given room if the moderators choose to do so. One recent example I observed is a supposedly "very nice guy" who has opened several internet discussions with, "we should throw all Jews in the ovens". This had the unfortunate effect of creating a certain image for this gentleman, and he was promptly disinvited from further participation in that Skypeland forum. All entreaties to allow him to speak and "debate" so far have been denied, and he is miffed about this apparently. This has to be done carefully, because some of the most interesting characters in Skypeland are some of the most offensive. I would have little fodder for this blog if all the kooks, flakes, hate-mongers, malcontents, inebriated and mentally deranged were driven out of all open discussion venues.
However, a room moderator has to be a bit careful in the tone that they set for the room, particularly when it comes to setting rules. For example, if two people are arguing, and one complains that the other is constantly interrupting them, the moderator should not demand that only one of the participants be allowed to speak without interruption, and not accord the other the same courtesy. If P is calmly reading a newspaper article, and C is making huge fart noises and screaming "B, B, B, B, 'ere come 'ere you fucking cunt, you dirty child molester, I will hunt you down and kill you, you filthy mother fucker, I am going to tear your head off and shit down your throat you fucking weasel, you dirty wanker, fucking ponce, B, B, B...", the moderator has to be careful how they deal with the situation. Turning off the microphones of both P and C, and then lecturing P dozens of times over the next few days that P is a jerk and an asshole and should stop his obnoxious behavior will create a certain image for the moderator. P might even start to get a slightly negative impression of the moderator, to the detriment of further interactions. If F is having a dispute with Q, allowing Q to complain for hours in uninterrupted fashion about how awful F is without according F a few minutes to present his or her side of the story will create a certain tone. This is further compounded if when F attempts to make a comment about Q, he is met with a hail of criticism and cursing, such as "goddamnit F, I have heard enough of this shit from you, you should stop it immediately, etc". This approach might tend to cause F to believe that the moderator really does not value F's participation, and fully accepts Q's position. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
Moderators seem to be accorded a certain amount of respect and prominence in Skypeland, even if it is unearned and completely unjustified. As in real life, there is a tendency for power to corrupt, and arrogance among moderators often develops. Interestingly, I have heard some Skypelanders trying to present their side of a dispute to a moderator in the hopes of gaining his "cyber favor", as though he was acting as some sort of "cyber judge". I have even listened as a moderator squirmed uncomfortably after having been described as a "father figure" to some Skypeland participants who were roughly the same age as him.
Moderation is clearly vital to maintain a lively environment in Skypeland. However, it is incredibly easy for moderators to completely destroy a room by allowing in too much chaos, or by driving away their most interesting participants.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Common Denominator
Just like all other parts of the internet, Skypeland is frequented by internet trolls. One thing that internet trolls love to do is to "out people" and embarrass people and threaten people. The basic aim of internet trolls is to cause as much chaos and havoc as possible, and to manipulate people.
The mystery man A has widely advertised that his purpose on the internet is to yank people's chains and get them as upset as possible. Somehow, he seems to always be connected to assorted strange events that people find disturbing. He somehow managed to get ahold of L's ex-boyfriend phone number and call his phone number, and leave a message, all while others in Skypeland were listening. This hurt L badly, and then to top it off, somehow the number was widely leaked on the internet. Of course, A claimed that he had no idea how this happened.
Then last night, A linked a phone call to one of the most notorious trolls on the internet to the internet discussion room in an attempt to cause more chaos. This character has been banned from well over a dozen large websites. Conversations with administrators on these websites all yielded the same comments; this is one of the most destructive trolls on the internet, bar none. Of course, the troll had no explanation for any of this; the conflict and disruption is all of the fault of the hundreds or maybe even thousands of other people he has been in fights with on the internet over the last 20 years. But trolls seem to like to link up.
Then today, there was another huge explosion of hostility in Skypeland. The mystery man A had brought a "protege" to the room; J, a young woman who had a close connection to him. This was one of dozens he has invited to come to the room, and most seem to be fervent conspiracy theorists. J was much more vague about her beliefs about the 911 inside job and conspiracy theorists, but left the door open to them. She immediately launched into several fights, trying to get others in the room to be politically correct and posting personal information of others in public. Then, this morning J became incredibly incensed. Someone supposedly had called her "mother".
The question arose, who called J's mother? Well no one but A knows J's personal details. Of course, A claimed that it was outrageous that he would be blamed for this. J stated that it was "impossible" that A could have called her mother since J was on a phone call with A at the same time that someone had called her mother. Also, A has a long track record of doing similar things, and attempting to stir up trouble. But somehow, the obvious suggestion of who was responsible for this call to J's phone number was met with outright anger and hostility.
The mystery man A has widely advertised that his purpose on the internet is to yank people's chains and get them as upset as possible. Somehow, he seems to always be connected to assorted strange events that people find disturbing. He somehow managed to get ahold of L's ex-boyfriend phone number and call his phone number, and leave a message, all while others in Skypeland were listening. This hurt L badly, and then to top it off, somehow the number was widely leaked on the internet. Of course, A claimed that he had no idea how this happened.
Then last night, A linked a phone call to one of the most notorious trolls on the internet to the internet discussion room in an attempt to cause more chaos. This character has been banned from well over a dozen large websites. Conversations with administrators on these websites all yielded the same comments; this is one of the most destructive trolls on the internet, bar none. Of course, the troll had no explanation for any of this; the conflict and disruption is all of the fault of the hundreds or maybe even thousands of other people he has been in fights with on the internet over the last 20 years. But trolls seem to like to link up.
Then today, there was another huge explosion of hostility in Skypeland. The mystery man A had brought a "protege" to the room; J, a young woman who had a close connection to him. This was one of dozens he has invited to come to the room, and most seem to be fervent conspiracy theorists. J was much more vague about her beliefs about the 911 inside job and conspiracy theorists, but left the door open to them. She immediately launched into several fights, trying to get others in the room to be politically correct and posting personal information of others in public. Then, this morning J became incredibly incensed. Someone supposedly had called her "mother".
The question arose, who called J's mother? Well no one but A knows J's personal details. Of course, A claimed that it was outrageous that he would be blamed for this. J stated that it was "impossible" that A could have called her mother since J was on a phone call with A at the same time that someone had called her mother. Also, A has a long track record of doing similar things, and attempting to stir up trouble. But somehow, the obvious suggestion of who was responsible for this call to J's phone number was met with outright anger and hostility.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Men and Women
Skypeland is a place where one can observe interactions of men and women in a somewhat filtered environment. Since it can be anonymous, and the people in Skypeland are not necessarily in real life contact, they often express themselves more easily, and probably feel there are fewer consequences for their actions and statements.
I was musing today about several recent events I have observed in Skypeland. I was telling T, a female friend of mine in Skypeland, about the flirtatious, giggly, cooing LK who lives in Kuwait (described in the blog post "Kuwait is the most conservative country"). T stated that the reason that men like these kind of women is that, clearly, "men are idiots".
I agreed, since a curvaceous figure or a wink or an enticing glance, a breathy voice or a seductive comment or two can turn men's heads very quickly in real life, and the same is true in Skypeland. I feel it myself.
I countered that men also sometimes cannot figure out what women see in certain men, such as the "flasher" and the alleged "drug dealer" who were chatting up LK in the blog post about Kuwait.
Also, the frequently stoned and angry BT that I described in the blog posts "Hitler drank Coca Cola", and "Japan surrendered before Pearl Harbor", who also was one of my attackers in the episode described in "Building codes", is fawned over by several women. They say things like, "oh he is so cute, and he is so nice to me and so lovely". I just do not see it. Instead, I see a drugged-out whiney loser who is ignorant, angry, disrespectful, crude and not just stupid, but aggressively stupid.
Another example that mystifies me is A, a Skypeland visitor described in the "Mystery man" post. Not only does everything that A claims about himself seem inconsistent and unlikely, but A demands that others accept it all as factual or he will threaten them and insult them. In addition, A is extremely aggressive in preaching about conspiracy theories, including the 911 Inside Job, HAARP, chemtrails, fluoride, the secret World Wide Jewish Cabal, etc. Again, if anyone disagrees, A bursts into an angry diatribe and demands that no one disagree with him or else. He also has thrown a multi-week viritual tantrum when his father was "insulted", although A himself is very free with his insults of others. If you couple this with a few recent attempts at social engineering to gain personal information and bank account information, I think this person appears completely unreliable. Nevertheless, a trio of women (each of who appears to have a long history of failed relationships, and each of who seems to exhibit pretty bad judgment sometimes when it comes to men, at least sometimes) have chastised me for not trusting A and accepting him as a reasonable, rational, upstanding, trustworthy family man.
One even challenged me repeatedly to "defend myself" as she mounted one attack after another against me. I guess this was her attempt to show her loyalty to A, the "mystery man", since she is part of his "cyber harem". T stated that the reason that women like A is that he talks so lovingly about his purported wife (who I am not sure even exists), so they are just dazzled by his supposedly romantic nature. Perhaps. (it is well-known among men that some single men put on fake wedding bands to attract women. This apparently works like magic. So who knows what is at play here...)
I notice that women often will vigorously and angrily protect their partners even when their partners are physically abusing these women, particularly if someone attempts to intervene. This is one of the reasons that the police are uneasy with trying to mediate domestic disputes. I think this might be one of the reasons women in Muslim cultures are so anxious to defend the misogynistic practices of much of the Muslim world.
Women seem to perceive the world and males in a very different way than most men do (is that sexist to notice? If so, I am guilty as charged). How else can one explain the number of women who are willing to marry men in prison, or even on death row, often that they have only recently met or even sought out while the men are incarcerated? I think you will find few if any men who find this to be an attractive option.
Most men remember their experiences in High School with some distaste, recalling the hordes of women who competed with each other to get the attention of a handful of "bad boys", who were clearly maladjusted losers, and ignored the duller and quieter and more studious types. This seems completely mystifying to the average male, particularly to those who are not among the ranks of the "bad boys" (this is not to say that males do not have an attraction to "bad girls" as well, of course).
However, yesterday, I had a real treat. The room was visited by Y, a middle-aged man from Geneva, Switzerland. Y was soft-spoken; he spoke so quietly that it was almost impossible to hear him. He spoke very calmly. Y declined to make any comments when asked about political questions, or several times made some very ambiguous statement about world events that was impossible to decipher.
However, things got really interesting as soon as most people vacated the room except for Y, my very attractive female friend R, and myself. I stayed quiet and just listened to the exchange.
Y launched into the biggest stream-of-consciousness psychobabble and foolishness that I have heard in ages. It was mystical. It was spiritual. It was New Age. It was respectful. It was reverential. It was uplifting. It was cathartic. He was in touch with his feelings. He murmurred. He understood perfectly. He susurrated. He coached. He charmed. He soothed. He cajoled. He goaded. He enticed. He lectured. He counselled. In short, it was complete crap.
R was eating it all up. R agreed with Y all the way through his presentation. I could not figure out what on earth Y was talking about, and several times during this 2 or 3 hour long session, I sent R a text message. R told me that she badly "wanted to fuck Y" and that if Y were present she would give him a blowjob for sure. She sent text messsages to me pointing out things like, "see? women sometimes go for a gentle guy". This was in spite of R pining for a hard aggressive masculine take-charge kind of guy for months and telling me repeatedly how inadequate a gentle, kind, soft ex-boyfriend had been. R has told me several times that "gentle, soft" men do not "know how to love" and she misses the hardness a rough and tough macho real man's man can show her. R told me that "Y definitely has no problem getting laid".
I did not record Y's spiel and I did not take notes. It was quite reminiscent of other "love talk" from assorted New Age Gurus I have heard from time to time, that women just seem to be enthralled with. I even remarked later to some males that this sort of thing would make millions if it was recorded on a CD or a DVD and sold; women would buy it like hotcakes since it seems to appeal to them. One of them feigned annoyance that I had not recorded it, and therefore missed the opportunity to make a few bucks.
Here is an attempt to reproduce some of the tone and feeling of what Y said, to give you an idea of what I mean. Imagine it being said in a thick French accent, in a very calm and almost inaudible voice:
Listen my child, you have to admit that inside all happiness is sadness and inside all sadness is happiness; you have to feel sad and happy at the same time to be complete and a whole person and therefore we have to mount together the ramparts of dialectic analyses and didacticism. Now the vibrational aspects of the universe connect us to each other in a material continuum, one to another, flowing and deeply intertwined with our true beings and selves slowly conforming inwardly and outwardly to all aspects of our dharmal and chiral nature, a collaborative ballet honoring our ancestors and our place in the unceasing temporal linkages that bind us all in an deceptively easy yet difficult, not to say fluid, superficiality and an apparent existential venue, washing upon the shores of colloidal protanopic patterning during our period of crepuscular penumbration and obliquity. What love is, and is not, is a vital part of our earthly enterprise and this complete and unerring personal and prehensile exploration must be carefully probed and poured out and catalogued upon that great occluded circular circle of existence, as we demand that all perturbational movements take place in this plane and no other. As it was in the past, it shall be in the future, completely identical, but different in all respects and it is this singular recognition of our omphalic quantum reality that allows the racemic penetration of the harmonic synchrony of symbiotic synergistic altruism and profound parthogenic quiet. The universe has the same strabismic aspect ratio as that attendant in corporeal banefulness, a deep and abiding toroidal collusion of synthetic personhood observable in all the emotional constructs we encounter. What I have found in my hermeneutical aspirations and pantethentical longings for peaceful coexistance on the ethereal ballustrade of cellular luminosity and perception is that it is done only in a callous fashion, figuratively speaking, imprinted with fealty for a return to accentuated hyperactive continuation and reversion, like the tides of the cosmic ocean. Effortless tensorial contiguous intentional acceleration of the human heart is needed yet required while twistingly offered in a special sameness and in a same specialness beyond our perception and our inherent acuity is one with our unadulterated contamination from our innermost beings and feelings, our most harsh hurts to the manifest fibers of your humanity and soul. Do you not see? Liberate your ego and dance the dance; look with your literal and figurative third eye upon what has been so brazenly exposed to our incisive peripatetic perambulations...
This claptrap, pretentious drivel and complete nonsense continued on in this droning fashion for hours on end. Y created a verbal monument to circumlocutorial excess, a paean to pointless horsepucky. It was quite impressive and I wondered if Y was making it up as he went along, or if he had memorized it at one point, or if he was reading it.
Anyway, it really seemed to do the trick. My lovely female friend R was clearly just dripping after a few minutes of this. R was completely dizzy for Y. That is, R was soaking wet and throbbing for Y. R was completely energized and panting. She wanted Y sexually, and wanted him really badly.
I had absolutely no idea what Y was saying, but R told me that "of course" she understood what Y was saying, perfectly clearly. However, I doubt that Y understood or understands what he said. I doubt that R understood this colloquy either. However, the droning and calm tone was obviously very seductive and hypnotic.
This performance was not only impressive, but interesting. I think that in this sort of thing, men and women are quite different. It is very difficult for men to understand exactly what women are thinking and perceiving about men, and difficult for women to understand exactly what men are thinking and perceiving about women. Is that sexist of me? I do not think so, but if it is, tough.
I was musing today about several recent events I have observed in Skypeland. I was telling T, a female friend of mine in Skypeland, about the flirtatious, giggly, cooing LK who lives in Kuwait (described in the blog post "Kuwait is the most conservative country"). T stated that the reason that men like these kind of women is that, clearly, "men are idiots".
I agreed, since a curvaceous figure or a wink or an enticing glance, a breathy voice or a seductive comment or two can turn men's heads very quickly in real life, and the same is true in Skypeland. I feel it myself.
I countered that men also sometimes cannot figure out what women see in certain men, such as the "flasher" and the alleged "drug dealer" who were chatting up LK in the blog post about Kuwait.
Also, the frequently stoned and angry BT that I described in the blog posts "Hitler drank Coca Cola", and "Japan surrendered before Pearl Harbor", who also was one of my attackers in the episode described in "Building codes", is fawned over by several women. They say things like, "oh he is so cute, and he is so nice to me and so lovely". I just do not see it. Instead, I see a drugged-out whiney loser who is ignorant, angry, disrespectful, crude and not just stupid, but aggressively stupid.
Another example that mystifies me is A, a Skypeland visitor described in the "Mystery man" post. Not only does everything that A claims about himself seem inconsistent and unlikely, but A demands that others accept it all as factual or he will threaten them and insult them. In addition, A is extremely aggressive in preaching about conspiracy theories, including the 911 Inside Job, HAARP, chemtrails, fluoride, the secret World Wide Jewish Cabal, etc. Again, if anyone disagrees, A bursts into an angry diatribe and demands that no one disagree with him or else. He also has thrown a multi-week viritual tantrum when his father was "insulted", although A himself is very free with his insults of others. If you couple this with a few recent attempts at social engineering to gain personal information and bank account information, I think this person appears completely unreliable. Nevertheless, a trio of women (each of who appears to have a long history of failed relationships, and each of who seems to exhibit pretty bad judgment sometimes when it comes to men, at least sometimes) have chastised me for not trusting A and accepting him as a reasonable, rational, upstanding, trustworthy family man.
One even challenged me repeatedly to "defend myself" as she mounted one attack after another against me. I guess this was her attempt to show her loyalty to A, the "mystery man", since she is part of his "cyber harem". T stated that the reason that women like A is that he talks so lovingly about his purported wife (who I am not sure even exists), so they are just dazzled by his supposedly romantic nature. Perhaps. (it is well-known among men that some single men put on fake wedding bands to attract women. This apparently works like magic. So who knows what is at play here...)
I notice that women often will vigorously and angrily protect their partners even when their partners are physically abusing these women, particularly if someone attempts to intervene. This is one of the reasons that the police are uneasy with trying to mediate domestic disputes. I think this might be one of the reasons women in Muslim cultures are so anxious to defend the misogynistic practices of much of the Muslim world.
Women seem to perceive the world and males in a very different way than most men do (is that sexist to notice? If so, I am guilty as charged). How else can one explain the number of women who are willing to marry men in prison, or even on death row, often that they have only recently met or even sought out while the men are incarcerated? I think you will find few if any men who find this to be an attractive option.
Most men remember their experiences in High School with some distaste, recalling the hordes of women who competed with each other to get the attention of a handful of "bad boys", who were clearly maladjusted losers, and ignored the duller and quieter and more studious types. This seems completely mystifying to the average male, particularly to those who are not among the ranks of the "bad boys" (this is not to say that males do not have an attraction to "bad girls" as well, of course).
However, yesterday, I had a real treat. The room was visited by Y, a middle-aged man from Geneva, Switzerland. Y was soft-spoken; he spoke so quietly that it was almost impossible to hear him. He spoke very calmly. Y declined to make any comments when asked about political questions, or several times made some very ambiguous statement about world events that was impossible to decipher.
However, things got really interesting as soon as most people vacated the room except for Y, my very attractive female friend R, and myself. I stayed quiet and just listened to the exchange.
Y launched into the biggest stream-of-consciousness psychobabble and foolishness that I have heard in ages. It was mystical. It was spiritual. It was New Age. It was respectful. It was reverential. It was uplifting. It was cathartic. He was in touch with his feelings. He murmurred. He understood perfectly. He susurrated. He coached. He charmed. He soothed. He cajoled. He goaded. He enticed. He lectured. He counselled. In short, it was complete crap.
R was eating it all up. R agreed with Y all the way through his presentation. I could not figure out what on earth Y was talking about, and several times during this 2 or 3 hour long session, I sent R a text message. R told me that she badly "wanted to fuck Y" and that if Y were present she would give him a blowjob for sure. She sent text messsages to me pointing out things like, "see? women sometimes go for a gentle guy". This was in spite of R pining for a hard aggressive masculine take-charge kind of guy for months and telling me repeatedly how inadequate a gentle, kind, soft ex-boyfriend had been. R has told me several times that "gentle, soft" men do not "know how to love" and she misses the hardness a rough and tough macho real man's man can show her. R told me that "Y definitely has no problem getting laid".
I did not record Y's spiel and I did not take notes. It was quite reminiscent of other "love talk" from assorted New Age Gurus I have heard from time to time, that women just seem to be enthralled with. I even remarked later to some males that this sort of thing would make millions if it was recorded on a CD or a DVD and sold; women would buy it like hotcakes since it seems to appeal to them. One of them feigned annoyance that I had not recorded it, and therefore missed the opportunity to make a few bucks.
Here is an attempt to reproduce some of the tone and feeling of what Y said, to give you an idea of what I mean. Imagine it being said in a thick French accent, in a very calm and almost inaudible voice:
Listen my child, you have to admit that inside all happiness is sadness and inside all sadness is happiness; you have to feel sad and happy at the same time to be complete and a whole person and therefore we have to mount together the ramparts of dialectic analyses and didacticism. Now the vibrational aspects of the universe connect us to each other in a material continuum, one to another, flowing and deeply intertwined with our true beings and selves slowly conforming inwardly and outwardly to all aspects of our dharmal and chiral nature, a collaborative ballet honoring our ancestors and our place in the unceasing temporal linkages that bind us all in an deceptively easy yet difficult, not to say fluid, superficiality and an apparent existential venue, washing upon the shores of colloidal protanopic patterning during our period of crepuscular penumbration and obliquity. What love is, and is not, is a vital part of our earthly enterprise and this complete and unerring personal and prehensile exploration must be carefully probed and poured out and catalogued upon that great occluded circular circle of existence, as we demand that all perturbational movements take place in this plane and no other. As it was in the past, it shall be in the future, completely identical, but different in all respects and it is this singular recognition of our omphalic quantum reality that allows the racemic penetration of the harmonic synchrony of symbiotic synergistic altruism and profound parthogenic quiet. The universe has the same strabismic aspect ratio as that attendant in corporeal banefulness, a deep and abiding toroidal collusion of synthetic personhood observable in all the emotional constructs we encounter. What I have found in my hermeneutical aspirations and pantethentical longings for peaceful coexistance on the ethereal ballustrade of cellular luminosity and perception is that it is done only in a callous fashion, figuratively speaking, imprinted with fealty for a return to accentuated hyperactive continuation and reversion, like the tides of the cosmic ocean. Effortless tensorial contiguous intentional acceleration of the human heart is needed yet required while twistingly offered in a special sameness and in a same specialness beyond our perception and our inherent acuity is one with our unadulterated contamination from our innermost beings and feelings, our most harsh hurts to the manifest fibers of your humanity and soul. Do you not see? Liberate your ego and dance the dance; look with your literal and figurative third eye upon what has been so brazenly exposed to our incisive peripatetic perambulations...
This claptrap, pretentious drivel and complete nonsense continued on in this droning fashion for hours on end. Y created a verbal monument to circumlocutorial excess, a paean to pointless horsepucky. It was quite impressive and I wondered if Y was making it up as he went along, or if he had memorized it at one point, or if he was reading it.
Anyway, it really seemed to do the trick. My lovely female friend R was clearly just dripping after a few minutes of this. R was completely dizzy for Y. That is, R was soaking wet and throbbing for Y. R was completely energized and panting. She wanted Y sexually, and wanted him really badly.
I had absolutely no idea what Y was saying, but R told me that "of course" she understood what Y was saying, perfectly clearly. However, I doubt that Y understood or understands what he said. I doubt that R understood this colloquy either. However, the droning and calm tone was obviously very seductive and hypnotic.
This performance was not only impressive, but interesting. I think that in this sort of thing, men and women are quite different. It is very difficult for men to understand exactly what women are thinking and perceiving about men, and difficult for women to understand exactly what men are thinking and perceiving about women. Is that sexist of me? I do not think so, but if it is, tough.
America and the Brits
Sometimes in Skypeland you can catch a glimpse of national character and mood if you listen closely. Recently a friend came across an article analyzing why foreigners seem to hate America. What I find interesting about this is that if you asked the average American what country was their best friend, almost every American would answer, "The United Kingdom".
However, from my visits to Skypeland, I find that is not particularly true among the people I talk to from the UK. Of the 10 or so Brits in Skypeland I can think of off the top of my head:
*one is fairly positive about the US
*one is sort of ambivalent about the US but still feels incredibly superior because he engages in foxhunting and plays polo and speaks with "received pronunciation" (previously called "BBC English") and this makes him think that the US and all Americans are beneath him because these are not major cultural activities in the US and the US is a mix of "inferior" cultures and accents. Interestingly, although he claims he as a college degree in physics, he is unable to answer the simplest questions about the subject. I guess he was too busy playing polo to do much studying.
*the other 8 are openly angry about the US, and hostile to all Americans, as well as feeling vastly superior in every way, shape and form to the US. They have no qualms about telling Americans over and over how stupid they are and awful they are in every possible way and telling them they are "pieces of shit". This makes many Brits extremely susceptible to the "inside job" nonsense some lunatics like to spread.
I notice that although there was a small "inside job" industry that welled up around 7/7, most of these Brits now dismiss it or are even unaware of it. It is just not as interesting when the conspiracy theories are about the UK to most Brits; they would rather focus on that big evil giant across the pond, the USA.
However, many Brits in Skypeland just prattle on like nincompoops about 911, presenting themselves as experts in building demolition, high rise construction, aircraft maintenance, thermite, DNA, metallurgy, physics, explosives, US Air Force procedures, the design of the Pentagon, and so on. This is true for many of these Brits, even if they never graduated from High School or visited the US. Their own country might be headed for the ash-heap of history and badly struggling, but they devote a huge amount of time and energy to studying the alleged failings of the US, and crowing about the purported deficiencies of America in almost indecipherable accents.
One room I frequent from time to time even has had to be programmed to "auto-mute" incoming visitors, partly because moderators were often coming in to find a nest of nattering Brits talking delightedly and gleefully about how much they hate the USA. Good lord, couldn't they find something more constructive to talk about?
However, from my visits to Skypeland, I find that is not particularly true among the people I talk to from the UK. Of the 10 or so Brits in Skypeland I can think of off the top of my head:
*one is fairly positive about the US
*one is sort of ambivalent about the US but still feels incredibly superior because he engages in foxhunting and plays polo and speaks with "received pronunciation" (previously called "BBC English") and this makes him think that the US and all Americans are beneath him because these are not major cultural activities in the US and the US is a mix of "inferior" cultures and accents. Interestingly, although he claims he as a college degree in physics, he is unable to answer the simplest questions about the subject. I guess he was too busy playing polo to do much studying.
*the other 8 are openly angry about the US, and hostile to all Americans, as well as feeling vastly superior in every way, shape and form to the US. They have no qualms about telling Americans over and over how stupid they are and awful they are in every possible way and telling them they are "pieces of shit". This makes many Brits extremely susceptible to the "inside job" nonsense some lunatics like to spread.
I notice that although there was a small "inside job" industry that welled up around 7/7, most of these Brits now dismiss it or are even unaware of it. It is just not as interesting when the conspiracy theories are about the UK to most Brits; they would rather focus on that big evil giant across the pond, the USA.
However, many Brits in Skypeland just prattle on like nincompoops about 911, presenting themselves as experts in building demolition, high rise construction, aircraft maintenance, thermite, DNA, metallurgy, physics, explosives, US Air Force procedures, the design of the Pentagon, and so on. This is true for many of these Brits, even if they never graduated from High School or visited the US. Their own country might be headed for the ash-heap of history and badly struggling, but they devote a huge amount of time and energy to studying the alleged failings of the US, and crowing about the purported deficiencies of America in almost indecipherable accents.
One room I frequent from time to time even has had to be programmed to "auto-mute" incoming visitors, partly because moderators were often coming in to find a nest of nattering Brits talking delightedly and gleefully about how much they hate the USA. Good lord, couldn't they find something more constructive to talk about?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Kuwait is the most conservative country
Every so often in Skypeland, I get a good look at some of the amazing ignorance and arrogance of the average person. A young married lady, the beautiful LK, has earned the nickname of "Stench mouth". LK has been in Kuwait with her husband for the last 18 months. She announced that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were the most "conservative countries in the Middle East".
She asked me if I agreed. I said that depends on what you define as the "Middle East" and how you define "conservative". She was quite dismissive of this answer, so I elaborated.
I said for example, if you view Afghanistan as part of the Middle East, which I do, I think that Afghanistan (or at least the parts controlled by the Taliban) is quite conservative because of
(1) the rules about beating women who smile or laugh in public and
(2) riots when women were allowed to go to school and
(3) public demands that women not be taught to read or write.
LK immediately responded that Afghanistan did not count since the "the Taliban are not Muslims". I disagreed politely, pointing out that the Deobandi version of Islam is what is followed by the Taliban, and they are definitely Muslims. However, this put her nose out of joint a bit; she was positive that there are no Muslims in the Taliban, and she did not like to be challenged since she lives in Kuwait and knows more and should not be disagreed with (of course, some Muslims like to define the Shiites or the Taliban or the Sunni Wahabi or the Salafis or the Sufis or the Turkish Muslims as nonMuslim too, but I do not think this is what she meant; she honestly believed that the Taliban did not follow the teachings of Mohammed or worship Allah or use the Koran etc. I have to admit that this seems completely off-topic; what does them being Muslims or not have to do with how conservative they are, or if they are in the Middle East? Some people seem to just be basically confused and willing to say anything to "win" an argument even if they sound ridiculous.).
LK then announced that Afghanistan also did not count since Afghanistan is not in the Middle East because it is "not one of the United Arab Emirates". I was astounded by this claim, since that would mean that Kuwait is not part of the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia is not in the Middle East, and Lebanon is not in the Middle East, and Israel is not in the Middle East, and Yemen is not in the Middle East, and so on. I asked her about this, but she stuck to her guns. She was positive she was correct and in fact a bit annoyed that I would disagree with her since, of course, she lives in Kuwait.
I was amazed, but she just laughed. She seemed to want to get back to flirting with two British "gentlemen" in the room. She giggled and cooed and preened excitedly to draw the attention of these males.
Then someone asked if women could drive in Kuwait. LK stated that they could, and also that women could drive in Saudi Arabia as well. I stated that I did not think women could drive in Saudi Arabia. This was met with derision, since of course LK lives in Kuwait and knows better than I ever could.
I was asked what I based my statement on, and I said that I talked regularly to two young Saudi sisters; one in high school and one in college, and that if women could drive in Saudi Arabia, it probably happened in the last two weeks. I was told that women in Saudi Arabia had been given the right to drive a year ago, which was news to me. I then was mocked sarcastically by LK for talking to these two Saudi women and it was suggested that this was impossible for me to do and that my information must be faulty, since, of course, LK lives in Kuwait.
LK made several sarcastic comments about how ignorant I was to disagree with her and claimed unequivocably that she had to know more than I did since she lived in Kuwait.
I was curious about this, so I went and found an article on the New York Times blogsite which had links to a BBC article and an ABC news report on this topic. This New York Times blog article stated that as recently as March 12, 2009, it was against the law for Saudi women to drive. Apparently all kinds of protests and requests aimed at getting the law changed over the last year or two have failed.
I tried to ask LK why she believed she was correct and why the New York Times, the BBC and ABC News were wrong. She asked me to read the blog article out loud. I did, while the two gentlemen she had been flirting with screamed constantly at me, calling me a "nonce" and a pansy and all sorts of other very offensive things. I guess they wanted a nice big fight, perhaps to show off for the lady they were trying to hit on. I ignored these two British morons and continued to read.
One of these "gentleman" claims to be an Irish heroin dealer who has just been bailed out of prison for stabbing someone over a heroin deal gone bad, and is awaiting trial (is this even true? who really knows...). He always appears online in an extremely inebriated and combative condition. The other is not as aggressive, but is someone who makes all sorts of jokes about homosexuality and anal sex and pedophilia and likes to expose himself on webcam for men and women and even pleasure himself for all to see, if they like (or maybe he is just giving us some examples of that fabled "british humor"). These two are clearly true representatives of the finest Britain has to offer. I can see why this young married lady was so excited at the prospect of flirting with them and getting their attention.
The moderator did not quiet the two gentlemen. In fact, he made it clear that I was to blame for the disruption, since by just reading the news article, I was "picking on" the alleged Irish drug dealer. The woman LK just laughed and wanted to get back to flirting with the charming drug dealer and the internet flasher. In fact, the moderator decided to mute me instead of the drug dealer when I requested that I be allowed to ask a question or two in peace. I was a bit frustrated, but at least I quickly understood everyone's position in this situation, I guess.
I decided it was pointless to continue with this charade, so I left. The one thing I learned is, some people can be incredibly stupid on occasion. Including the moderator, in this instance. And people can be quite pleased with their stupidity.
Addendum
There was a flurry of text messages after this episode and after I first posted this blog account. I was going to post expurgated versions of these text messages, but I erased them because a mutual friend requested that I remove them.
LK became extremely upset to see how she had been represented in this blog post and apparently logged off the internet crying. I am personally somewhat glad that she was upset, at least in some ways, because I think she should think carefully about what sort of impression she is giving out to others when she behaves in this kind of fashion. I offered to read and possibly post her written version of the events in this blog posting, but she said I was a "fucker" and worse, and said she was crying and miserable and would never return to Skypeland again.
Ah well. Payback is a bitch, you know.
Addendum II
The young lady LK reappeared a few days later to cackle and laugh maniacally and flirt and pretend to act offended. She again claimed to be angry about this blog post, so I invited her again for about the 10th time to write up her account of what had happened. She declined again. She said that she had agreed with my statements about women driving in Saudi Arabia, but that women could drive if accompanied by a male relative. I said this was possible, but asked for the evidence of this. None was forthcoming, of course.
LK claimed that I had not heard what I thought I heard, and that the impression I had of this episode was not the same as my account here. I would dearly love to know why she would think she would know better than me what my impression was, but I guess it is pretty typical. I was blamed for causing chaos by reading the article she asked me to read, while C screamed at me. Well, that is her version and I would again invite her to write it up. People's different impressions of a situation is well know, and called the Rashomon Effect.
Interestingly, J, a young lady who fancies herself as an expert in internet research and reason came to LK's aid with her discovery of a news article from a UK newspaper, dated January 21, 2008. This article claims that the driving ban will be lifted, but of course the articles I found from over a year later show that the ban has not yet been lifted.
What is more interesting is how this smug self-confident lady presented this evidence in a chat window associated with this particular room in Skypeland.
J: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1576182/Saudi-Arabia-to-lift-ban-on-women-drivers.html
J: Women can drive in Saudi Arabia
Because of her frantic efforts to "win" this battle or to help another woman "win", she somehow claimed that a year-old plan to lift the ban meant that the ban had been lifted, even when later articles show that it has not yet been lifted.
Two people mentioned that they had heard rumors that women were driving in Saudi Arabia, but not in the cities and towns, but out in the countryside. This could be true, but I have not heard of it previously. Perhaps if women are in areas without a lot of law enforcement, they can get away with violating this restriction.
She asked me if I agreed. I said that depends on what you define as the "Middle East" and how you define "conservative". She was quite dismissive of this answer, so I elaborated.
I said for example, if you view Afghanistan as part of the Middle East, which I do, I think that Afghanistan (or at least the parts controlled by the Taliban) is quite conservative because of
(1) the rules about beating women who smile or laugh in public and
(2) riots when women were allowed to go to school and
(3) public demands that women not be taught to read or write.
LK immediately responded that Afghanistan did not count since the "the Taliban are not Muslims". I disagreed politely, pointing out that the Deobandi version of Islam is what is followed by the Taliban, and they are definitely Muslims. However, this put her nose out of joint a bit; she was positive that there are no Muslims in the Taliban, and she did not like to be challenged since she lives in Kuwait and knows more and should not be disagreed with (of course, some Muslims like to define the Shiites or the Taliban or the Sunni Wahabi or the Salafis or the Sufis or the Turkish Muslims as nonMuslim too, but I do not think this is what she meant; she honestly believed that the Taliban did not follow the teachings of Mohammed or worship Allah or use the Koran etc. I have to admit that this seems completely off-topic; what does them being Muslims or not have to do with how conservative they are, or if they are in the Middle East? Some people seem to just be basically confused and willing to say anything to "win" an argument even if they sound ridiculous.).
LK then announced that Afghanistan also did not count since Afghanistan is not in the Middle East because it is "not one of the United Arab Emirates". I was astounded by this claim, since that would mean that Kuwait is not part of the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia is not in the Middle East, and Lebanon is not in the Middle East, and Israel is not in the Middle East, and Yemen is not in the Middle East, and so on. I asked her about this, but she stuck to her guns. She was positive she was correct and in fact a bit annoyed that I would disagree with her since, of course, she lives in Kuwait.
I was amazed, but she just laughed. She seemed to want to get back to flirting with two British "gentlemen" in the room. She giggled and cooed and preened excitedly to draw the attention of these males.
Then someone asked if women could drive in Kuwait. LK stated that they could, and also that women could drive in Saudi Arabia as well. I stated that I did not think women could drive in Saudi Arabia. This was met with derision, since of course LK lives in Kuwait and knows better than I ever could.
I was asked what I based my statement on, and I said that I talked regularly to two young Saudi sisters; one in high school and one in college, and that if women could drive in Saudi Arabia, it probably happened in the last two weeks. I was told that women in Saudi Arabia had been given the right to drive a year ago, which was news to me. I then was mocked sarcastically by LK for talking to these two Saudi women and it was suggested that this was impossible for me to do and that my information must be faulty, since, of course, LK lives in Kuwait.
LK made several sarcastic comments about how ignorant I was to disagree with her and claimed unequivocably that she had to know more than I did since she lived in Kuwait.
I was curious about this, so I went and found an article on the New York Times blogsite which had links to a BBC article and an ABC news report on this topic. This New York Times blog article stated that as recently as March 12, 2009, it was against the law for Saudi women to drive. Apparently all kinds of protests and requests aimed at getting the law changed over the last year or two have failed.
I tried to ask LK why she believed she was correct and why the New York Times, the BBC and ABC News were wrong. She asked me to read the blog article out loud. I did, while the two gentlemen she had been flirting with screamed constantly at me, calling me a "nonce" and a pansy and all sorts of other very offensive things. I guess they wanted a nice big fight, perhaps to show off for the lady they were trying to hit on. I ignored these two British morons and continued to read.
One of these "gentleman" claims to be an Irish heroin dealer who has just been bailed out of prison for stabbing someone over a heroin deal gone bad, and is awaiting trial (is this even true? who really knows...). He always appears online in an extremely inebriated and combative condition. The other is not as aggressive, but is someone who makes all sorts of jokes about homosexuality and anal sex and pedophilia and likes to expose himself on webcam for men and women and even pleasure himself for all to see, if they like (or maybe he is just giving us some examples of that fabled "british humor"). These two are clearly true representatives of the finest Britain has to offer. I can see why this young married lady was so excited at the prospect of flirting with them and getting their attention.
The moderator did not quiet the two gentlemen. In fact, he made it clear that I was to blame for the disruption, since by just reading the news article, I was "picking on" the alleged Irish drug dealer. The woman LK just laughed and wanted to get back to flirting with the charming drug dealer and the internet flasher. In fact, the moderator decided to mute me instead of the drug dealer when I requested that I be allowed to ask a question or two in peace. I was a bit frustrated, but at least I quickly understood everyone's position in this situation, I guess.
I decided it was pointless to continue with this charade, so I left. The one thing I learned is, some people can be incredibly stupid on occasion. Including the moderator, in this instance. And people can be quite pleased with their stupidity.
Addendum
There was a flurry of text messages after this episode and after I first posted this blog account. I was going to post expurgated versions of these text messages, but I erased them because a mutual friend requested that I remove them.
LK became extremely upset to see how she had been represented in this blog post and apparently logged off the internet crying. I am personally somewhat glad that she was upset, at least in some ways, because I think she should think carefully about what sort of impression she is giving out to others when she behaves in this kind of fashion. I offered to read and possibly post her written version of the events in this blog posting, but she said I was a "fucker" and worse, and said she was crying and miserable and would never return to Skypeland again.
Ah well. Payback is a bitch, you know.
Addendum II
The young lady LK reappeared a few days later to cackle and laugh maniacally and flirt and pretend to act offended. She again claimed to be angry about this blog post, so I invited her again for about the 10th time to write up her account of what had happened. She declined again. She said that she had agreed with my statements about women driving in Saudi Arabia, but that women could drive if accompanied by a male relative. I said this was possible, but asked for the evidence of this. None was forthcoming, of course.
LK claimed that I had not heard what I thought I heard, and that the impression I had of this episode was not the same as my account here. I would dearly love to know why she would think she would know better than me what my impression was, but I guess it is pretty typical. I was blamed for causing chaos by reading the article she asked me to read, while C screamed at me. Well, that is her version and I would again invite her to write it up. People's different impressions of a situation is well know, and called the Rashomon Effect.
Interestingly, J, a young lady who fancies herself as an expert in internet research and reason came to LK's aid with her discovery of a news article from a UK newspaper, dated January 21, 2008. This article claims that the driving ban will be lifted, but of course the articles I found from over a year later show that the ban has not yet been lifted.
What is more interesting is how this smug self-confident lady presented this evidence in a chat window associated with this particular room in Skypeland.
J: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1576182/Saudi-Arabia-to-lift-ban-on-women-drivers.html
J: Women can drive in Saudi Arabia
Because of her frantic efforts to "win" this battle or to help another woman "win", she somehow claimed that a year-old plan to lift the ban meant that the ban had been lifted, even when later articles show that it has not yet been lifted.
Two people mentioned that they had heard rumors that women were driving in Saudi Arabia, but not in the cities and towns, but out in the countryside. This could be true, but I have not heard of it previously. Perhaps if women are in areas without a lot of law enforcement, they can get away with violating this restriction.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Hitler drank Coca Cola
Skypeland offers one the opportunity to observe how some people reach conclusions. One visitor confidently asserted that World War II was a complete ruse and a setup. We asked why he said this, and he became extremely irate, since he felt it was "obviously" true. His evidence was that the best-selling soft drink in Japan and Germany before World War II was Coca Cola. Therefore, he claimed, it was obvious that World War II was a complete fake conflict and that the US was in bed with the Axis powers.
I see. But not really.
Mainly I see that this idiot is clueless and would be unable to reason himself out of a wet paper bag.
I see. But not really.
Mainly I see that this idiot is clueless and would be unable to reason himself out of a wet paper bag.
It is all about the butt
One of our frequent visitors to Skype, R, likes to drink a lot. The more he drinks, the more of an expert he becomes, on every subject. Interestingly, all conversations on all subjects somehow seem to lead back to a discussion of anal sex of some kind, or fecal material. When people talk about hockey, R brings the conversation around to anal sex. When people talk about Miami, R somehow connects the discussion to anal sex. If there is any discourse about DNA, R somehow manages to find out some way to bring in anal sex. Any topic somehow seems to be a invitation to discuss cornholing; automobiles, cancer, terrorism, atomic weaponry, nutrition, singing, etc.
For example, a young man came into a Skypeland room, and asked if an older lady, married to a somewhat unattractive older man, could love a young man. R immediately turned the question on its ear, to speculate about a potential homosexual relationship between the young man and the husband, with plenty of anal sex. I entered the conversation an hour or more later, and was asked what I would do if I came home and caught my wife in the arms of another man. I wondered if R would get jealous and try to take the man for himself. R responded, again in a drunken stupor, that if he found another man having his way with his misses, "if I caught that man, that man would be fucked". Sure enough, again any discussion about any subject with R somehow seems to lead to R fantasizing about anal sex, or threatening someone with anal sex, or waxing poetic about anal sex. When confronted with this, R always denies that he is doing this, and claims that it is always the fault of the others in the conversation. Ah yes, clearly... I guess denial is not just a river in Egypt.
As an experiment, one of the moderators brought up about 20 different subjects in a row, asking R what he thought. Sure enough, within a sentence or two, R had somehow worked in a reference to anal sex. For example, when he was asked about the snail darter fish, R asked if the snail darter was some kind of "bottom feeder". Again, any subject just leads right back to some sort of reference to anal sex...
It is amazing. I asked him once why he somehow seems so anxious to talk about bunghole banging that every conversation seems to revolve around poophole poking. He denied that this was true, and said that it was the fault of the Americans; that is why every discussion he has in Skypeland with Americans seems to focus on rump rangers, rimming, dick lickers and big steaming piles of shit.
Addendum
R will go on and on and on without hardly stopping to take a breath for literally hours. Every hour or two,, R takes a break for 20 minutes or so and then returns back, stronger than ever. One of the moderator figures that the reason that he leaves is that R talks so much, he is unable to drink to maintain his buzz. Therefore, when R starts to sober up, he takes a break and goes off to drink half a quart of vodka. When R has taken a leak and had some more alcohol, he returns to the fray, fighting and insulting and cursing and threatening to kill just about everyone else in the room.
For example, a young man came into a Skypeland room, and asked if an older lady, married to a somewhat unattractive older man, could love a young man. R immediately turned the question on its ear, to speculate about a potential homosexual relationship between the young man and the husband, with plenty of anal sex. I entered the conversation an hour or more later, and was asked what I would do if I came home and caught my wife in the arms of another man. I wondered if R would get jealous and try to take the man for himself. R responded, again in a drunken stupor, that if he found another man having his way with his misses, "if I caught that man, that man would be fucked". Sure enough, again any discussion about any subject with R somehow seems to lead to R fantasizing about anal sex, or threatening someone with anal sex, or waxing poetic about anal sex. When confronted with this, R always denies that he is doing this, and claims that it is always the fault of the others in the conversation. Ah yes, clearly... I guess denial is not just a river in Egypt.
As an experiment, one of the moderators brought up about 20 different subjects in a row, asking R what he thought. Sure enough, within a sentence or two, R had somehow worked in a reference to anal sex. For example, when he was asked about the snail darter fish, R asked if the snail darter was some kind of "bottom feeder". Again, any subject just leads right back to some sort of reference to anal sex...
It is amazing. I asked him once why he somehow seems so anxious to talk about bunghole banging that every conversation seems to revolve around poophole poking. He denied that this was true, and said that it was the fault of the Americans; that is why every discussion he has in Skypeland with Americans seems to focus on rump rangers, rimming, dick lickers and big steaming piles of shit.
Addendum
R will go on and on and on without hardly stopping to take a breath for literally hours. Every hour or two,, R takes a break for 20 minutes or so and then returns back, stronger than ever. One of the moderator figures that the reason that he leaves is that R talks so much, he is unable to drink to maintain his buzz. Therefore, when R starts to sober up, he takes a break and goes off to drink half a quart of vodka. When R has taken a leak and had some more alcohol, he returns to the fray, fighting and insulting and cursing and threatening to kill just about everyone else in the room.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Rotten old bitch
Every so often in Skypeland, we are privileged to be regaled with accounts of sexual prowess and amatory adventures. "J", an occasional visitor to Skypeland, came by last night to tell us that he often beats other males to a pulp, and that he finds it very arousing. J claimed that he often orgasms after beating a man senseless, so he pulls open his pants and ejaculates all over his unconscious victim. J also told us that he had "sucked off Gene Simmons" when he was 15 years old. J likes to tell a story about a visit to a bathhouse when he had sex with 20 different men. Then another man tried to force J to give him a blow job and J claims that he bit off the end of his penis and spit it in his face. Another time he said that if there were no hot guys around, he would just bang away at a pile of hot fresh shit, and cum in the poop. However, J sometimes can outdo himself, although it is difficult to rise to this challenge. When Miss America was being discussed, J said that "Hell I could easily fuck all those bitches, but who cares? I am not into that shit".
Recently, J told us that he had serviced a wealthy middle-aged matron a few weeks ago. This lady took him out to dinner and bought some medicine for J's dog. The lady became drunk, and J felt obliged to give her some sexual attention in return. As J said, he felt he had to "get this over with". He told us "butt bitches" that he was "only doing it for his dog". He told us that the "old bitch's pussy was as dry as a tumbleweed". J said that when even before he was done with her, she fell asleep and snored. J complained that when she was asleep, she sounded like "an untuned Harley Davidson". J said it was like "fucking a lizard" and that she was as "dry as the Gobi Desert". He said that "her pussy was like sandpaper, honey" and that "my butt smelled better than her cunt, that is for damn sure". After, he picked "the rotten old bitch" up, carried her to his door, and threw her outside where she continued to snore on his doorstep. The next morning, she called him and asked him if she had been over at his place the previous evening.
Ah yes, J is a true romantic.
Addendum
J told us tonight that being with the tumbleweed was awful and "it would have been more fun to fuck the ground". We asked if he did her in the backdoor, but he said he "did her in the peach". J said he would have had more fun if he had had the presence of mind to go in the back way.
Recently, J told us that he had serviced a wealthy middle-aged matron a few weeks ago. This lady took him out to dinner and bought some medicine for J's dog. The lady became drunk, and J felt obliged to give her some sexual attention in return. As J said, he felt he had to "get this over with". He told us "butt bitches" that he was "only doing it for his dog". He told us that the "old bitch's pussy was as dry as a tumbleweed". J said that when even before he was done with her, she fell asleep and snored. J complained that when she was asleep, she sounded like "an untuned Harley Davidson". J said it was like "fucking a lizard" and that she was as "dry as the Gobi Desert". He said that "her pussy was like sandpaper, honey" and that "my butt smelled better than her cunt, that is for damn sure". After, he picked "the rotten old bitch" up, carried her to his door, and threw her outside where she continued to snore on his doorstep. The next morning, she called him and asked him if she had been over at his place the previous evening.
Ah yes, J is a true romantic.
Addendum
J told us tonight that being with the tumbleweed was awful and "it would have been more fun to fuck the ground". We asked if he did her in the backdoor, but he said he "did her in the peach". J said he would have had more fun if he had had the presence of mind to go in the back way.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Old MacDonald
Skypeland harbors a number of notorious boozers, and we were paid a particularly charming visit by one of the more famous of these inebriates the other day. On his third day at his new job driving a bus, he sped under a low underpass and tore the roof off the bus, causing thousands of dollars of damage. He was unsure if he would be terminated or not, but he had quite a buzz when we talked to him.
He launched into a rendition of his own idosyncratic and particularly lurid version of "Old MacDonald had a farm", that went something like this:
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a shit, ee i ee i oh.
With a shit shit here and a shit shit there, here a shit there a shit everywhere a shit shit,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a fuck, ee i ee i oh.
With a fuck fuck here and a fuck fuck there, here a fuck there a fuck everywhere a fuck fuck,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a cunt, ee i ee i oh.
With a cunt cunt here and a cunt cunt there, here a cunt there a cunt everywhere a cunt cuht,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a nigger, ee i ee i oh.
With a nigger nigger here and a nigger nigger there, here a nigger there a nigger everywhere a nigger nigger,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
At first the other drunks in the room were annoyed and tried to do batttle with him and drown him out. However, after a few verses of this ribald ditty, they decided that this song was much too appealing to warrant an objection, and they all joined in an off-key intoxicated choir.
He launched into a rendition of his own idosyncratic and particularly lurid version of "Old MacDonald had a farm", that went something like this:
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a shit, ee i ee i oh.
With a shit shit here and a shit shit there, here a shit there a shit everywhere a shit shit,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a fuck, ee i ee i oh.
With a fuck fuck here and a fuck fuck there, here a fuck there a fuck everywhere a fuck fuck,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a cunt, ee i ee i oh.
With a cunt cunt here and a cunt cunt there, here a cunt there a cunt everywhere a cunt cuht,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
And on this farm he had a nigger, ee i ee i oh.
With a nigger nigger here and a nigger nigger there, here a nigger there a nigger everywhere a nigger nigger,
Old MacDonald had a farm, ee i ee i oh.
At first the other drunks in the room were annoyed and tried to do batttle with him and drown him out. However, after a few verses of this ribald ditty, they decided that this song was much too appealing to warrant an objection, and they all joined in an off-key intoxicated choir.
Just a gigolo
One of the visitors to Skypeland is a somewhat effeminate gentleman from Southern California who is very proud of his herd of small poodles. He almost never appears unless he is several sheets to the wind and often gets into numerous altercations. He peppers his speech with expressions like "Oh puleeeze honey", but if sufficiently annoyed will threaten to "dick you to death", a threat mainly directed towards males. He states that he conducts most of his business deals in the nude at his house. He has advertised that he has an immense male appendage, that "weighs at least two pounds".
This Skypeland visitor openly admits to being gay, and has regaled the room with descriptions of his assorted cavorting with his Mexican exboyfriend, but it is a bit more difficult to pin down his other activities. At various times he has stated that he is a doctor, and a tax preparer, a computer programmer, a home theatre designer and installer, a lead singer of a band, a real estate agent, a chef, a NASA astronaut and the head of research and development at Hughes Electronics.
He has told us a lot of crazy stories, such as the time when he was in medical school and he caught two students "having their way" with two of the cadavers being dissected. One medical student was caught hammering away at the corpse of a woman in her 80s, and the other was "poking" the carcas of a young lady who was not yet 20, but missing several important body parts. However, the young woman's body still had "a head and a cunt" and that was enough for the medical student's purposes, apparently. J uses this episode as an example of how unfair it is to call gay men perverts.
However, one of his most famous stories is an account of his time as a tutor, while putting himself through medical school. He charged 25 $ per hour, and a team of 4 blonde female cheerleaders tied him up and forced him to satisfy each of them. He apparently was forced to ejaculate 4 separate times in each of the four cheerleader's pudenda, all in the space of an hour allegedly. However, he stated that he was not that unhappy with this eventuality, as they each paid up for the time expended, and he made 100$ for an hour's work. This unfortunately lead to his reputation being spread around campus, with many women anxious for him to service them, although he was an openly homosexual male. Ah, yes, it all sounds so credible, but it is a good thing he was able to rise to the challenge.
This Skypeland visitor openly admits to being gay, and has regaled the room with descriptions of his assorted cavorting with his Mexican exboyfriend, but it is a bit more difficult to pin down his other activities. At various times he has stated that he is a doctor, and a tax preparer, a computer programmer, a home theatre designer and installer, a lead singer of a band, a real estate agent, a chef, a NASA astronaut and the head of research and development at Hughes Electronics.
He has told us a lot of crazy stories, such as the time when he was in medical school and he caught two students "having their way" with two of the cadavers being dissected. One medical student was caught hammering away at the corpse of a woman in her 80s, and the other was "poking" the carcas of a young lady who was not yet 20, but missing several important body parts. However, the young woman's body still had "a head and a cunt" and that was enough for the medical student's purposes, apparently. J uses this episode as an example of how unfair it is to call gay men perverts.
However, one of his most famous stories is an account of his time as a tutor, while putting himself through medical school. He charged 25 $ per hour, and a team of 4 blonde female cheerleaders tied him up and forced him to satisfy each of them. He apparently was forced to ejaculate 4 separate times in each of the four cheerleader's pudenda, all in the space of an hour allegedly. However, he stated that he was not that unhappy with this eventuality, as they each paid up for the time expended, and he made 100$ for an hour's work. This unfortunately lead to his reputation being spread around campus, with many women anxious for him to service them, although he was an openly homosexual male. Ah, yes, it all sounds so credible, but it is a good thing he was able to rise to the challenge.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Ass cheese
Sometimes in Skypeland an inebriated character shows up to argue incoherently with anyone that will listen. One frequent visitor to Skypeland drinks 3 liters or more of Vodka, in a 12 hour bender, once a week. Inevitably, once he is sufficiently drunk, he starts to muse about how nice anal sex is, or anal-oral contact is, particularly between males. When I said that I liked to eat Turkish Delight, he said that the best way to eat it was to freeze it solid and place it up a woman's vagina and then eat it from there. After he had a bit more to drink, he was advocating putting a frozen Mars bar up a lady's posterior and then consuming it in place, or up a man's rectum.
He can be incredibly tedious, and he threatens everyone he comes across with torture or death. After a few hours, I let this "gentleman" talk to a radio preacher for an hour or so. I came back, and he was involved in a vehement argument with the radio preacher. As I started to listen, he told the radio preacher that he wanted to eat cheese out of the radio preacher's ass. Well I had never imagined such a delicacy, or what it would taste like, but I guess to each his own.
He can be incredibly tedious, and he threatens everyone he comes across with torture or death. After a few hours, I let this "gentleman" talk to a radio preacher for an hour or so. I came back, and he was involved in a vehement argument with the radio preacher. As I started to listen, he told the radio preacher that he wanted to eat cheese out of the radio preacher's ass. Well I had never imagined such a delicacy, or what it would taste like, but I guess to each his own.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Israel is full of Khazars!
Another great example of the rampant stupidity that is often on display in Skypeland was observed today. One gentleman very confidently asserted that Israel was populated with "92% Khazars". The implication, which this person repeats over and over mindlessly, is that Israel is supposedly an illegal state filled mainly with Northern European Jews. These Northern European Jews have arrogantly set up housekeeping in the center of the Middle East. These Northern European Jews have stolen the land of the natives who have inhabited the Levant for millenia, and do not belong there, according to this narrative.
How accurate is this? Well I did a bit of research, and found that the population of Ashkenazi Jews in Israel has recently exceeded the number of Sephardic Jews in Israel. However, this is only because of recent immigration from the Former Soviet Union. As of 1996, about 50% of the Jews in Israel were Ashkenazi Jews [1]. Of course, many Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars, and since there are about 1.5 million nonJews in Israel, only about 40% of all Israelis are Ashkenazis and obviously there are even fewer with Khazar ancestry. However, this never stops the anti-semitic ranting; why let the facts get in the way of the spewing of hatred?
Addendum
Today this gentleman, who had clearly read this blog, claimed that I was a liar since he had a friend who had told him that 92% of all Jews in Europe are Khazars. Ah yes, it must be true since a "friend" told him this. And of course, the statistics for Europe can be applied directly to Israeli demographics.
How accurate is this? Well I did a bit of research, and found that the population of Ashkenazi Jews in Israel has recently exceeded the number of Sephardic Jews in Israel. However, this is only because of recent immigration from the Former Soviet Union. As of 1996, about 50% of the Jews in Israel were Ashkenazi Jews [1]. Of course, many Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars, and since there are about 1.5 million nonJews in Israel, only about 40% of all Israelis are Ashkenazis and obviously there are even fewer with Khazar ancestry. However, this never stops the anti-semitic ranting; why let the facts get in the way of the spewing of hatred?
Addendum
Today this gentleman, who had clearly read this blog, claimed that I was a liar since he had a friend who had told him that 92% of all Jews in Europe are Khazars. Ah yes, it must be true since a "friend" told him this. And of course, the statistics for Europe can be applied directly to Israeli demographics.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A way to make friends
The other day in Skypeland, a young girl from Serbia announced her presence by declaring "Your country is shit, you are shit, I hate you all and you all should be killed".
Of course, people reacted somewhat negatively to this, and she was shocked that she had such an unpleasant reception. She was asked over and over where she was from, and she refused to say what country she was from for several minutes. Finally she admitted she was from Serbia. She was very hurt that her initial entry into the room had lead to counterattacks by those in the room. She was upset when people made comparisons between Serbia and other countries. She became defensive when people questioned Serbia's behavior in wars against its neighbors just a few years ago.
The thing that becomes obvious in Skypeland, over and over, is that those who cannot take it, should not dish it out. And people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Of course, people reacted somewhat negatively to this, and she was shocked that she had such an unpleasant reception. She was asked over and over where she was from, and she refused to say what country she was from for several minutes. Finally she admitted she was from Serbia. She was very hurt that her initial entry into the room had lead to counterattacks by those in the room. She was upset when people made comparisons between Serbia and other countries. She became defensive when people questioned Serbia's behavior in wars against its neighbors just a few years ago.
The thing that becomes obvious in Skypeland, over and over, is that those who cannot take it, should not dish it out. And people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Saddam Hussein promoted democracy
Skypeland gives one an opportunity to monitor the mindset of people from all over the world. One young lady from Algeria declared loudly that Iraq was a democracy under Saddam Hussein, and that Saddam had done more for democracy than anyone else on earth. Someone else in the room asked her why she said this, and what she meant by the word "democracy". The Algerian girl said that Saddam was a hero and created a democracy because he killed Americans, and that was what made him a hero.
Wow. That pretty much says it all.
Wow. That pretty much says it all.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Mystery man
One of the features of Skypeland is a reluctance of participants to give out information about themselves. This of course is reasonable and understandable, but there are many who create an image of themselves that is contradictory and confusing, and then demand that others not question it. If anyone questions any of their less probable statements, they will fly into a rage and threaten and attack others. Here is an example of one such "mystery man".
This "gentleman", which we will call "A" in this post, claims to be married sometimes, and single other times. This gentleman claims to have a wife sometimes and a girlfriend other times. This person has stated that he has two sons, but that he is childless other times. He states that his father is dying, but then other times he refers to his father as already dead. He was on the internet every 15 minutes on the day on which he supposedly was getting married. In fact, even now when he is supposedly a newly wed with two sons, A frequently "patrols" Skypeland discussions around the clock, pulling all nighters and is acutely sensitive to any potential statement he wants to object to. This seems fairly strange behavior for a supposed middle-aged man who is a newlywed and a businessman who heads up an array of multi-million dollar businesses.
A has stated he lives in the Ukraine and has lived there for 3 years sometimes, but other evidence exists that he has lived there for 16 years. Sometimes he says he survives on no income, and other times he states that he is a self-made multimillionaire. He has said that he was homeless for a period and starving. He supposedly tried to import his pink Mercedes to Cyprus and ran into trouble with the bureaucracy. He says he has a close friend that did time in a US federal prison for white color crime.
A says that he is fluent in Russian, and sometimes makes statements that are supposedly Russian, but refuses to converse in Russian, or is unable to answer questions in Russian. In one of the few times in which he did answer questions in Russian, he responded in an awkard halting fashion, stringing together Esperanto, Polish, Ukrainian, Spanish and Russian in an incoherent mess. A also claims to be fluent in Spanish and other languages, although no one has any evidence of this. He sounds like a quintessential California surfer boy, with a rudimentary grasp of English typical of the unschooled and barely literate. His language is full of slang and imprecise.
He makes threats about sending child pornography, and then denies that he has made these threats. He states that he is a famous lawyer or that he is connected to a famous lawyer, although the evidence he presents is false. He claims that he is or was a part owner in a t-shirt manufacturing business. He claims to be a United Nations representative; the youngest who has ever been appointed to such a position. He is supposedly in the fish farming business and in the fur trading business. He has stated that he is an expert in jet aircraft maintenance. He is supposed to have a aircraft license, and be licensed to pilot a ship up to 300 meters in length, although he makes numerous mistakes when discussing watercraft specifications. He supposedly was the head of the team that inspected Chernobyl for radiation hazards. The address in Southern California he gives out is a fake.
He claims to have been raised on a farm and to have delivered many piglets from sows giving birth. He states that at the age of 14 he was put in a special US government program to train him at a graduate level by several PhDs (at varying times, he has stated that he entered this program at the age of 12 or even 10). Although he claims to be highly educated, formal emails and letters he has written are replete with startling errors in grammar and other infelicities. In spite of his supposedly superior education, he does not know the rudiments of high school science, although some of these features fuel his aggressive angry anti-American rants and are central parts of his worldview. He appears to subscribe to every single conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, but the level of reasoning that appears to convince him is embarrassingly simple-minded. The information he relies on seems to come from youtube videos produced by high school drop-outs. Or is he really serious?
He alleges that he is just playing tricks on others, and only trying to enrage and insult as many other people as possible, but then is disgusted when people do not trust him and find him repulsive. He spews hatred against Americans and Israel and Jews and foreigners, but might be Jewish himself and has an American accent. He has a very thin skin and reacts angrily when anyone doubts anything he says.
He supposedly is 80% disabled from an accident when he was serving in the US military in which he received serious radiation burns all over his body, but has stated he receives no compensation for his injuries, and seems to function at a high level in spite of his purported disabilities. Other times he claims he gets minimal disability payments. Nothing is clear, and he makes contradictory claims constantly, but then is offended when people are somewhat skeptical of his more extreme allegations.
He works cooperatively in an online enterprise, and then takes offense at a perceived slight, no worse than any he himself has dealt to many others. He leaves in a huff and announces loudly and frequently that he will take everything back that he has contributed. However, when his online partners make other arrangements in the face of his threats, he returns over and over and over to monitor their activities, although he said he would have nothing more to do with them.
A likes to record others without their permission, in violation of a wide range of standards of decency, and more. A edits these recordings to try to misrepresent their statements in the recordings, and then posts them on youtube and in other public venues in an attempt to embarrass them and harass them.
A is often questioned about his statements and claims. Often when he is caught in a lie, he starts to stutter.
All of this would be fine under normal circumstances, except for the illegal recording. No one has to know where he is from and any personal information about him. However, he makes this an issue by bringing up his credentials over and over and acting in an extremely unpleasant and angry aggressive manner.
Would you trust this man? Would you give him your home address? Would you give him your name and the names of your family members and friends? Would you give him your bank account information?
Neither would I. And guess what? I didn't.
Addendum
Interestingly, A became incensed at the suggestion in this blog that someone might not trust him. When he saw what I had written in this blog, he threw repeated tantrums and made threats, and said I had written nothing but lies. However, the statements here are all drawn from claims he has made or websites he has made about himself, purportedly. I tried to document what he has said and what I read to the best of my ability. I personally see no problem with stating that these claims, which I have not attributed to any real person, are somewhat dubious.
Maybe these claims are lies. Maybe not. Who knows? I do not trust that these statements are all accurate. And it is my right to be skeptical, at least as far as I know. I do not know of any law that others must believe everything that A claims. However, it seems to drive A wild that anyone would dare say that they find him to be somewhat untrustworthy or to find his claims uncompelling.
What is it to him? Apparently, a tremendous amount. So he has escalated into further threats over this, which I guess was completely predictable.
I have decided that this "gentleman" is essentially a troll and should be ignored. He even announced, loudly and frequently that his main purpose in Skypeland is to spew as many lies and get as many people angry at him as possible, for his own amusement. This is the classic definition of an internet troll. Well I am glad to agree with him. This is his purpose in Skypeland, as far as I can tell.
Addendum II
I have asked around a bit more, and the more I hear, the more strange this story appears. One person told me that A had single-handedly taken down the Great Firewall of China, the Chinese government filtering mechanism. He also told me that A had found all sorts of internal weaknesses in the Skype software and had helped Skype improve its code and reduce its vulnerabilities. He apparently is claiming that my lawyer called his wife recently.
What I am struck by most however, is his response to anyone examining his claims about himself and his behavior. After all, why should he care? This is just the internet and he can claim to be whoever he likes on the internet. However, he takes it a bit too far when he takes things into the real world, or threatens to take them into the real world, with personal attacks and efforts to stalk and harass and threaten others, to get "even" for a perceived slight when someone states they do not find his stories and claims credible. He likes to threaten people for not believing these claims, but then when someone repeats his claims, he states they are "lying" and gets annoyed. It is interesting that he wants to be believed and not believed simultaneously; if you accept everything he says, and repeat it, you are "lying" and should be attacked for this. If you question what he says and state that you do not find it credible, he attacks you for not believing. So if one believes his claims or disbelieves his claims, he finds either alternative to be a reason to attack and threaten.
Just as a troll would. Because this is what trolls do. Trolls try to create a disturbance, and so either alternative serves their purpose. It gives them a reason to cry foul and to throw tantrums. They take it as justification for their attempts to put others in prison, or launch lawsuits, or to "out" them, or to try to embarrass them, or get them fired, or harass them, or otherwise do them personal harm.
Addendum III
Lately A seems to have earned himself the nickname "Sap" because of his harassment, insults and repeated threats against those that appear on his "enemies list" for a variety of reasons. Sap decides to attack and stalk others for being Jewish or pro-Israeli, or being skeptical about conspiracy theories, such as the popular "911 Inside Job" conspiracy theory. In my case, I am on the enemies list for not only being skeptical that the US government attacked its own people as a false flag operation on 9.11.01, but because I have repeatedly stated that I do not trust him. Ah yes, that sure is a great offense. I would invite Sap to show me the law that states that I must trust him.
Addendum IV
SAP claimed to personally know Lisa Nowak, the astronaut who drove from Texas to Florida to confront her romantic rival wearing adult diapers. One of those listening was someone who works for NASA, who thought the story sounded doubtful. Nevertheless, he took note of SAP's claims, and then investigated further later with people very familiar with Nowak.
As expected, none of SAP's assertions held water when they were checked. Just another made-up story, full of nonsense.
Also, I asked SAP if he would be willing to repeat the name of the PhD who trained him in this special government program for brilliant youngsters, so this story could be verified. SAP has previously offered the name and boasted that this person would confirm his story. I did not take note of the name at the time. SAP said he would be glad to make the call. I said that was insufficient; I needed the name to investigate the matter and make sure I was not getting scammed. Of course, SAP demurred and refused to tell the name of his "trainer".
Again, another instance of one lie piled on top of another. And as before, SAP has backed up these lies with a constant barrage of threats and harassment and intimidation efforts. A real nice fellow.
Addendum V
A picture of the "mystery man" shows a swarthy balding chunky figure. He has been asked frequently about his ethnic heritage, and has denied being hispanic or Arabic or African American numerous times. However, recently he has bragged that he is actually an Arab. So what is the truth? Like everything else about the mystery man A, the truth is not evident at first glance.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Building codes
I recently saw another example of how some in Skypeland just seize on anything to create disruption and fights. I noted that because of what was learned after 9/11, that building codes had been modified.
I had heard allusions to this by friends and in broadcast news. However, this comment of mine was met with widespread derision, leading to mocking attacks, cursing and threats. I declined to respond until I had verified the current status after some investigation.
Sure enough, in a few minutes I found numerous articles about the changes of building codes, both national and international. There were articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post and various building trade magazines. As of 2009, there were 23 changes in the International Building Code stemming directly from things learned on 9/11. Building owners and managers in New York City and other places were objecting to the increased costs stemming from the new regulations. Even the General Services Administration was fighting the new requirements because of the costs they would mean for the government.
What is interesting to me that I was so vehemently attacked, over and over and over, in the most aggressive and vile fashion, including insults and threats. And a simple google search revealed a HUGE number of sources for the building code changes, in a very few seconds, with minimal effort. And yet these conspiracy theorists and other assorted detractors were SO CONVINCED they were correct and that no such building changes existed, that they engaged in the most outrageous vile behavior.
Later I asked them why they couldn't find any of those references, and asked them what they thought of the information I had found. I asked over and over, at least ten times. And they gave me no response, and made no comments. After a few experiences like this, people lose patience with these conspiracy theorists.
I had heard allusions to this by friends and in broadcast news. However, this comment of mine was met with widespread derision, leading to mocking attacks, cursing and threats. I declined to respond until I had verified the current status after some investigation.
Sure enough, in a few minutes I found numerous articles about the changes of building codes, both national and international. There were articles in the New York Times, the Washington Post and various building trade magazines. As of 2009, there were 23 changes in the International Building Code stemming directly from things learned on 9/11. Building owners and managers in New York City and other places were objecting to the increased costs stemming from the new regulations. Even the General Services Administration was fighting the new requirements because of the costs they would mean for the government.
What is interesting to me that I was so vehemently attacked, over and over and over, in the most aggressive and vile fashion, including insults and threats. And a simple google search revealed a HUGE number of sources for the building code changes, in a very few seconds, with minimal effort. And yet these conspiracy theorists and other assorted detractors were SO CONVINCED they were correct and that no such building changes existed, that they engaged in the most outrageous vile behavior.
Later I asked them why they couldn't find any of those references, and asked them what they thought of the information I had found. I asked over and over, at least ten times. And they gave me no response, and made no comments. After a few experiences like this, people lose patience with these conspiracy theorists.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The Irish pay lower taxes
Another episode in Skypeland that had me shaking my head in amazement revolved around an Irish gentleman who claimed that the Irish pay lower taxes than the Americans. This was a bit of a surprising claim to hear, so I endeavored to do a bit of investigation. I found that the Irish pay taxes, and lots of them. Most products have a 21.5% Valued Added Tax added to them. Inheritance money is treated like regular income, and has regular income taxes applied to it, and in addition a 22% CAT tax. The Irish also pay a 1-9% stamp tax, and a 1% share tax on holdings of stock. Since January, 2009 there is an addition 1-3% Levy tax. Income up to 34,500 euros is taxed at a 20% marginal rate (plus the extra levy tax of 1%). Income in excess of 34,500 euros is taxed at a 41% marginal rate. There is also a tax credit of 1830 euros that can be taken, in the case of a single taxpayer.
It should be a matter of some amazement to most Americans to hear that someone would be willing to claim that these Irish tax rates are lower than American tax rates. But nevertheless, this Irish "gentleman" was proud to spout this loudly and angrily, over and over, yelling and screaming and cursing and attacking anyone who said that this claim did not sound very convincing.
When I looked up and quoted the government figures, the Irishman became incredibly angry and said it was unfair to look up the figures to verify his claims. Oh really? Well I think that says more about the reliability of this particular Irishman more than anything else.
Here is some text conversation on the topic with the gentleman in question:
[4/4/2009 5:38:07 PM] B says: amazing how all the Irish government websites are wrong, isn't it?
[4/4/2009 5:38:12 PM] B says: I would complain if I were you
[4/4/2009 5:38:33 PM] B says: you are wasting tax money on government websites that are all incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:38:35 PM] B says: over and over and over
[4/4/2009 5:38:39 PM] B says: your tax data
[4/4/2009 5:38:42 PM] B says: your immigration data
[4/4/2009 5:38:45 PM] B says: it is all incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:38:49 PM] B says: amazing
[4/4/2009 5:39:28 PM] N says: what are u trying to proove u good with google
[4/4/2009 5:39:38 PM] B says: why dont you complain?
[4/4/2009 5:39:48 PM] B says: complain that your government is publishing bad data
[4/4/2009 5:39:56 PM] B says: it is a national disagrace I think
[4/4/2009 5:39:56 PM] N says: complaine about what
[4/4/2009 5:40:33 PM] N says: so if u feel that way send them a letter
[4/4/2009 5:40:53 PM] B says: 41% income tax rate over 34,500 Euros and a 1 percent tax levy surcharge starting in January 2009
[4/4/2009 5:40:59 PM] B says: and amazingly, that is incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:41:07 PM] B says: so why do they put it on the government website I wonder?
[4/4/2009 5:41:42 PM] N says: tell them not me i not the goverment
[4/4/2009 5:42:01 PM] N says: u got ur nickers in a twist
[4/4/2009 5:42:58 PM] B says: I will be glad to immortalize your brilliant analysis in my blog
[4/4/2009 5:43:06 PM] B says: amazing how your government always fucks up
[4/4/2009 5:43:13 PM] B says: the census is wrong
[4/4/2009 5:43:23 PM] B says: the education statistics are incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:43:30 PM] N says: i dont care nobody reads it
[4/4/2009 5:43:30 PM] B says: the tax department publishes the wrong figures
[4/4/2009 5:43:31 PM] B says: amazing
[4/4/2009 5:43:36 PM] B says: good for you
[4/4/2009 5:43:50 PM] B says: you have penetrated into the depths with your brilliant analysis
[4/4/2009 5:43:53 PM] B says: we are all impressed
[4/4/2009 5:44:12 PM] N says: out also in ur blogs that u are always depressed
[4/4/2009 5:44:21 PM] B says: oh yes?
[4/4/2009 5:44:28 PM] B says: you have read that have you?
[4/4/2009 5:44:33 PM] B says: I am always depressed?
[4/4/2009 5:44:47 PM] B says: Oh did it describe it?
[4/4/2009 5:44:54 PM] B says: wow you are a doctor now
[4/4/2009 5:44:56 PM] N says: no B never read ur blogs
[4/4/2009 5:44:59 PM] B says: a psychoanalyst
[4/4/2009 5:45:02 PM] B says: you just said you did
[4/4/2009 5:45:08 PM] B says: you are a psychiatrist
[4/4/2009 5:45:15 PM] B says: and you pay less tax than any American
[4/4/2009 5:45:16 PM] N says: it not hard to fathom that out
[4/4/2009 5:45:17 PM] B says: impressive
[4/4/2009 5:45:29 PM] B says: must be Irish English
[4/4/2009 5:45:32 PM] B says: "fathom" it out
[4/4/2009 5:46:02 PM] B says: yes we know that the 0.5% nonEuropean immigrant level that Ireland has greatly exceeds the number of nonEuropean immigrants in the USA
[4/4/2009 5:46:09 PM] B says: I remember that from your last brilliant analysis
[4/4/2009 5:46:37 PM] B says: and of course the US is unfair to Irish people because we do not allow more immigrants from Ireland
[4/4/2009 5:46:39 PM] B says: we are so unfair
[4/4/2009 5:46:42 PM] N says: B keep going u will run urself out
[4/4/2009 5:46:43 PM] B says: yes brilliant
[4/4/2009 5:46:55 PM] B says: No I am glad to get more material to showcase your brilliance
[4/4/2009 5:47:09 PM] B says: after all, we all know it is a crime to look things up
[4/4/2009 5:47:18 PM] N says: and ur insanity
[4/4/2009 5:47:20 PM] B says: that is why the Guinness book of world records is banned in Ireland right?
[4/4/2009 5:47:29 PM] B says: it is illegal to have I understand
[4/4/2009 5:47:31 PM] B says: correct?
[4/4/2009 5:47:52 PM] N says: oh yes and google is banned and sex is banned also
[4/4/2009 5:47:54 PM] B says: the Irish do not believe in looking things up so they banned the book
[4/4/2009 5:48:08 PM] N says: deffinatly
[4/4/2009 5:48:14 PM] B says: Well why dont you try to tell the world that Ireland pays lower taxes than the US
[4/4/2009 5:48:17 PM] B says: and gets more for it
[4/4/2009 5:48:25 PM] B says: and Germany too
[4/4/2009 5:48:32 PM] B says: sounds like an amazing fact that others should know
[4/4/2009 5:48:44 PM] B says: you probably lived in the US for 20 years and germany for 20 years so you know them both well
[4/4/2009 5:48:55 PM] N says: oh the moon is out here
[4/4/2009 5:49:05 PM] B says: well maybe you lived there too
[4/4/2009 5:49:09 PM] B says: I don't know
[4/4/2009 5:49:18 PM] B says: how is the tax rate on the moon?
[4/4/2009 5:49:24 PM] N says: no live inballygobackwards
[4/4/2009 5:49:36 PM] B says: yes no taxes there
[4/4/2009 5:49:38 PM] B says: of course not
[4/4/2009 5:49:47 PM] B says: it is a tax shelter
[4/4/2009 5:49:49 PM] B says: a tax haven
[4/4/2009 5:49:51 PM] B says: it is well known
[4/4/2009 5:50:02 PM] N says: no just piss away
[4/4/2009 5:50:04 PM] B says: lower taxes than Luxembourg?
[4/4/2009 5:50:23 PM] B says: well you better check your facts before you start bragging next time
[4/4/2009 5:50:43 PM] B says: That is why the Irish first wrote the Guinness Book of World Records if I am not mistaken
[4/4/2009 5:50:49 PM] N says: B u in a tagent about time u went to sleep
[4/4/2009 5:50:51 PM] B says: to answer braggers like you
[4/4/2009 5:50:57 PM] B says: that is the purpose
[4/4/2009 5:51:08 PM] B says: to shut up people who brag and brag and brag with no data to back it up
[4/4/2009 5:51:18 PM] N says: whatever i said u gone into a freak
[4/4/2009 5:51:24 PM] B says: it is the middle of the day here
[4/4/2009 5:51:27 PM] B says: bright sunshine
[4/4/2009 5:51:29 PM] B says: hot
[4/4/2009 5:51:32 PM] B says: nice breeze
[4/4/2009 5:51:35 PM] B says: thank you very much
[4/4/2009 5:51:45 PM] N says: u still want to relax
[4/4/2009 5:52:00 PM] B says: IF Ireland was a tax haven it would be interesting
[4/4/2009 5:52:08 PM] B says: but unfortunately I see no evidence that it is a tax haven
[4/4/2009 5:52:10 PM] B says: Sorry
[4/4/2009 5:52:23 PM] B says: You better point me to a source that shows that Ireland is a tax haven I guess
[4/4/2009 5:52:27 PM] B says: because it sure is not obvious
[4/4/2009 5:52:38 PM] N says: B it saturday night here i dont mix pleasure with buisness
[4/4/2009 5:52:53 PM] B says: right
[4/4/2009 5:52:53 PM] B says: you just brag and brag and brag
[4/4/2009 5:52:55 PM] B says: i know that
[4/4/2009 5:52:58 PM] N says: anyways annoy somebody else
[4/4/2009 5:53:09 PM] B says: Just giving you one more chance
[4/4/2009 5:53:15 PM] B says: to show that I am incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:53:16 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 5:53:19 PM] B says: but I guess you couldnt
[4/4/2009 5:53:30 PM] B says: I have to go with the government figures I am afraid
[4/4/2009 5:53:49 PM] N says: u always right i shouldnt forget
[4/4/2009 5:54:00 PM] B says: No I am not
[4/4/2009 5:54:08 PM] B says: I am willing to learn new things
[4/4/2009 5:54:18 PM] B says: but I will check out claims that are hard to believe
[4/4/2009 5:54:30 PM] B says: and the claim that Ireland is a tax haven is a bit hard to believe
[4/4/2009 5:54:31 PM] B says: sorry
[4/4/2009 5:55:02 PM] N says: B only thing u know u are always right
[4/4/2009 5:55:03 PM] B says: The claim that Ireland has more immigrants per capita than the US is a bit hard to believe as well
[4/4/2009 5:55:14 PM] B says: all these claims are a bit much
[4/4/2009 5:55:20 PM] B says: The US probably is less healthy
[4/4/2009 5:55:24 PM] B says: the US is probably fatter
[4/4/2009 5:55:29 PM] B says: the US is probably more violent
[4/4/2009 5:55:35 PM] B says: those I could believe
[4/4/2009 5:55:48 PM] B says: The US is probably dirtier
[4/4/2009 5:55:54 PM] N says: i never knew that
[4/4/2009 5:56:06 PM] B says: well I do not know the data but I would find those believable
[4/4/2009 5:56:23 PM] B says: but Ireland having a low tax rate is very hard to buy
[4/4/2009 5:57:09 PM] N says: B here something u wont believe i am a us citizen born there
[4/4/2009 5:57:25 PM] B says: well you didnt spend much time in the US I suspect
[4/4/2009 5:57:44 PM] B says: all countries have good points and bad points
[4/4/2009 5:57:59 PM] N says: have beign there for 3 years
[4/4/2009 5:58:02 PM] B says: but to ferret them out you have to look at the situation carefully
[4/4/2009 5:58:44 PM] N says: explaine dont understand what u mean
[4/4/2009 5:59:26 PM] B says: Look the US is good at some things
[4/4/2009 5:59:29 PM] B says: and awful at others
[4/4/2009 5:59:40 PM] B says: same with Ireland and Germany and France and India etc
[4/4/2009 5:59:48 PM] N says: i agree
[4/4/2009 5:59:53 PM] B says: but to understand the situation you have to look very carefully at the data
[4/4/2009 6:00:19 PM] B says: for example, on international exams students leaving school in the US rank at 30th-40th place
[4/4/2009 6:00:29 PM] B says: the US spends more per pupil on education
[4/4/2009 6:00:33 PM] B says: and gets terrible results
[4/4/2009 6:00:37 PM] B says: now that is disturbing
[4/4/2009 6:00:38 PM] N says: i have no prob but when somone says something u attack
[4/4/2009 6:00:39 PM] B says: but true
[4/4/2009 6:00:55 PM] B says: some want to claim that the US has the best education ...period
[4/4/2009 6:00:59 PM] B says: it has some good points
[4/4/2009 6:01:08 PM] B says: but overall it is very disturbing
[4/4/2009 6:01:11 PM] B says: a HUGE waste of money
[4/4/2009 6:01:31 PM] B says: one cannot fix the problems unless you can identify them clearly
[4/4/2009 6:01:41 PM] N says: its u that starts the argument
[4/4/2009 6:01:41 PM] B says: and believe me, we have problems that need to be fixed here
[4/4/2009 6:01:54 PM] B says: well if you make a claim, you better back it up with data
[4/4/2009 6:02:10 PM] B says: I can back up my claims about the strengths and weaknesses of the US education system with data
[4/4/2009 6:02:16 PM] N says: and when outsiders hear u they turn in discust
[4/4/2009 6:02:22 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 6:02:28 PM] B says: that is why they call it "skypeassholes"
[4/4/2009 6:02:43 PM] N says: nobody listens to u
[4/4/2009 6:02:49 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 6:03:09 PM] B says: Well I had a pretty large fan base for someone no one listened to
[4/4/2009 6:03:13 PM] B says: but sure if you say so
[4/4/2009 6:03:33 PM] N says: dream on
[4/4/2009 6:04:04 PM] N says: if u had u wouldnt be texting me
[4/4/2009 6:04:07 PM] B says: well we can no longer gauge it
[4/4/2009 6:04:11 PM] B says: since skypecasts are gone
[4/4/2009 6:05:54 PM] N says: in the end everyone from the outside had left u were only talking to the converted
[4/4/2009 6:06:22 PM] B says: oh yeah?
[4/4/2009 6:06:23 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 6:06:25 PM] B says: oh ok
[4/4/2009 6:06:31 PM] B says: you can believe whatever you like
[4/4/2009 6:06:54 PM] N says: u know
It should be a matter of some amazement to most Americans to hear that someone would be willing to claim that these Irish tax rates are lower than American tax rates. But nevertheless, this Irish "gentleman" was proud to spout this loudly and angrily, over and over, yelling and screaming and cursing and attacking anyone who said that this claim did not sound very convincing.
When I looked up and quoted the government figures, the Irishman became incredibly angry and said it was unfair to look up the figures to verify his claims. Oh really? Well I think that says more about the reliability of this particular Irishman more than anything else.
Here is some text conversation on the topic with the gentleman in question:
[4/4/2009 5:38:07 PM] B says: amazing how all the Irish government websites are wrong, isn't it?
[4/4/2009 5:38:12 PM] B says: I would complain if I were you
[4/4/2009 5:38:33 PM] B says: you are wasting tax money on government websites that are all incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:38:35 PM] B says: over and over and over
[4/4/2009 5:38:39 PM] B says: your tax data
[4/4/2009 5:38:42 PM] B says: your immigration data
[4/4/2009 5:38:45 PM] B says: it is all incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:38:49 PM] B says: amazing
[4/4/2009 5:39:28 PM] N says: what are u trying to proove u good with google
[4/4/2009 5:39:38 PM] B says: why dont you complain?
[4/4/2009 5:39:48 PM] B says: complain that your government is publishing bad data
[4/4/2009 5:39:56 PM] B says: it is a national disagrace I think
[4/4/2009 5:39:56 PM] N says: complaine about what
[4/4/2009 5:40:33 PM] N says: so if u feel that way send them a letter
[4/4/2009 5:40:53 PM] B says: 41% income tax rate over 34,500 Euros and a 1 percent tax levy surcharge starting in January 2009
[4/4/2009 5:40:59 PM] B says: and amazingly, that is incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:41:07 PM] B says: so why do they put it on the government website I wonder?
[4/4/2009 5:41:42 PM] N says: tell them not me i not the goverment
[4/4/2009 5:42:01 PM] N says: u got ur nickers in a twist
[4/4/2009 5:42:58 PM] B says: I will be glad to immortalize your brilliant analysis in my blog
[4/4/2009 5:43:06 PM] B says: amazing how your government always fucks up
[4/4/2009 5:43:13 PM] B says: the census is wrong
[4/4/2009 5:43:23 PM] B says: the education statistics are incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:43:30 PM] N says: i dont care nobody reads it
[4/4/2009 5:43:30 PM] B says: the tax department publishes the wrong figures
[4/4/2009 5:43:31 PM] B says: amazing
[4/4/2009 5:43:36 PM] B says: good for you
[4/4/2009 5:43:50 PM] B says: you have penetrated into the depths with your brilliant analysis
[4/4/2009 5:43:53 PM] B says: we are all impressed
[4/4/2009 5:44:12 PM] N says: out also in ur blogs that u are always depressed
[4/4/2009 5:44:21 PM] B says: oh yes?
[4/4/2009 5:44:28 PM] B says: you have read that have you?
[4/4/2009 5:44:33 PM] B says: I am always depressed?
[4/4/2009 5:44:47 PM] B says: Oh did it describe it?
[4/4/2009 5:44:54 PM] B says: wow you are a doctor now
[4/4/2009 5:44:56 PM] N says: no B never read ur blogs
[4/4/2009 5:44:59 PM] B says: a psychoanalyst
[4/4/2009 5:45:02 PM] B says: you just said you did
[4/4/2009 5:45:08 PM] B says: you are a psychiatrist
[4/4/2009 5:45:15 PM] B says: and you pay less tax than any American
[4/4/2009 5:45:16 PM] N says: it not hard to fathom that out
[4/4/2009 5:45:17 PM] B says: impressive
[4/4/2009 5:45:29 PM] B says: must be Irish English
[4/4/2009 5:45:32 PM] B says: "fathom" it out
[4/4/2009 5:46:02 PM] B says: yes we know that the 0.5% nonEuropean immigrant level that Ireland has greatly exceeds the number of nonEuropean immigrants in the USA
[4/4/2009 5:46:09 PM] B says: I remember that from your last brilliant analysis
[4/4/2009 5:46:37 PM] B says: and of course the US is unfair to Irish people because we do not allow more immigrants from Ireland
[4/4/2009 5:46:39 PM] B says: we are so unfair
[4/4/2009 5:46:42 PM] N says: B keep going u will run urself out
[4/4/2009 5:46:43 PM] B says: yes brilliant
[4/4/2009 5:46:55 PM] B says: No I am glad to get more material to showcase your brilliance
[4/4/2009 5:47:09 PM] B says: after all, we all know it is a crime to look things up
[4/4/2009 5:47:18 PM] N says: and ur insanity
[4/4/2009 5:47:20 PM] B says: that is why the Guinness book of world records is banned in Ireland right?
[4/4/2009 5:47:29 PM] B says: it is illegal to have I understand
[4/4/2009 5:47:31 PM] B says: correct?
[4/4/2009 5:47:52 PM] N says: oh yes and google is banned and sex is banned also
[4/4/2009 5:47:54 PM] B says: the Irish do not believe in looking things up so they banned the book
[4/4/2009 5:48:08 PM] N says: deffinatly
[4/4/2009 5:48:14 PM] B says: Well why dont you try to tell the world that Ireland pays lower taxes than the US
[4/4/2009 5:48:17 PM] B says: and gets more for it
[4/4/2009 5:48:25 PM] B says: and Germany too
[4/4/2009 5:48:32 PM] B says: sounds like an amazing fact that others should know
[4/4/2009 5:48:44 PM] B says: you probably lived in the US for 20 years and germany for 20 years so you know them both well
[4/4/2009 5:48:55 PM] N says: oh the moon is out here
[4/4/2009 5:49:05 PM] B says: well maybe you lived there too
[4/4/2009 5:49:09 PM] B says: I don't know
[4/4/2009 5:49:18 PM] B says: how is the tax rate on the moon?
[4/4/2009 5:49:24 PM] N says: no live inballygobackwards
[4/4/2009 5:49:36 PM] B says: yes no taxes there
[4/4/2009 5:49:38 PM] B says: of course not
[4/4/2009 5:49:47 PM] B says: it is a tax shelter
[4/4/2009 5:49:49 PM] B says: a tax haven
[4/4/2009 5:49:51 PM] B says: it is well known
[4/4/2009 5:50:02 PM] N says: no just piss away
[4/4/2009 5:50:04 PM] B says: lower taxes than Luxembourg?
[4/4/2009 5:50:23 PM] B says: well you better check your facts before you start bragging next time
[4/4/2009 5:50:43 PM] B says: That is why the Irish first wrote the Guinness Book of World Records if I am not mistaken
[4/4/2009 5:50:49 PM] N says: B u in a tagent about time u went to sleep
[4/4/2009 5:50:51 PM] B says: to answer braggers like you
[4/4/2009 5:50:57 PM] B says: that is the purpose
[4/4/2009 5:51:08 PM] B says: to shut up people who brag and brag and brag with no data to back it up
[4/4/2009 5:51:18 PM] N says: whatever i said u gone into a freak
[4/4/2009 5:51:24 PM] B says: it is the middle of the day here
[4/4/2009 5:51:27 PM] B says: bright sunshine
[4/4/2009 5:51:29 PM] B says: hot
[4/4/2009 5:51:32 PM] B says: nice breeze
[4/4/2009 5:51:35 PM] B says: thank you very much
[4/4/2009 5:51:45 PM] N says: u still want to relax
[4/4/2009 5:52:00 PM] B says: IF Ireland was a tax haven it would be interesting
[4/4/2009 5:52:08 PM] B says: but unfortunately I see no evidence that it is a tax haven
[4/4/2009 5:52:10 PM] B says: Sorry
[4/4/2009 5:52:23 PM] B says: You better point me to a source that shows that Ireland is a tax haven I guess
[4/4/2009 5:52:27 PM] B says: because it sure is not obvious
[4/4/2009 5:52:38 PM] N says: B it saturday night here i dont mix pleasure with buisness
[4/4/2009 5:52:53 PM] B says: right
[4/4/2009 5:52:53 PM] B says: you just brag and brag and brag
[4/4/2009 5:52:55 PM] B says: i know that
[4/4/2009 5:52:58 PM] N says: anyways annoy somebody else
[4/4/2009 5:53:09 PM] B says: Just giving you one more chance
[4/4/2009 5:53:15 PM] B says: to show that I am incorrect
[4/4/2009 5:53:16 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 5:53:19 PM] B says: but I guess you couldnt
[4/4/2009 5:53:30 PM] B says: I have to go with the government figures I am afraid
[4/4/2009 5:53:49 PM] N says: u always right i shouldnt forget
[4/4/2009 5:54:00 PM] B says: No I am not
[4/4/2009 5:54:08 PM] B says: I am willing to learn new things
[4/4/2009 5:54:18 PM] B says: but I will check out claims that are hard to believe
[4/4/2009 5:54:30 PM] B says: and the claim that Ireland is a tax haven is a bit hard to believe
[4/4/2009 5:54:31 PM] B says: sorry
[4/4/2009 5:55:02 PM] N says: B only thing u know u are always right
[4/4/2009 5:55:03 PM] B says: The claim that Ireland has more immigrants per capita than the US is a bit hard to believe as well
[4/4/2009 5:55:14 PM] B says: all these claims are a bit much
[4/4/2009 5:55:20 PM] B says: The US probably is less healthy
[4/4/2009 5:55:24 PM] B says: the US is probably fatter
[4/4/2009 5:55:29 PM] B says: the US is probably more violent
[4/4/2009 5:55:35 PM] B says: those I could believe
[4/4/2009 5:55:48 PM] B says: The US is probably dirtier
[4/4/2009 5:55:54 PM] N says: i never knew that
[4/4/2009 5:56:06 PM] B says: well I do not know the data but I would find those believable
[4/4/2009 5:56:23 PM] B says: but Ireland having a low tax rate is very hard to buy
[4/4/2009 5:57:09 PM] N says: B here something u wont believe i am a us citizen born there
[4/4/2009 5:57:25 PM] B says: well you didnt spend much time in the US I suspect
[4/4/2009 5:57:44 PM] B says: all countries have good points and bad points
[4/4/2009 5:57:59 PM] N says: have beign there for 3 years
[4/4/2009 5:58:02 PM] B says: but to ferret them out you have to look at the situation carefully
[4/4/2009 5:58:44 PM] N says: explaine dont understand what u mean
[4/4/2009 5:59:26 PM] B says: Look the US is good at some things
[4/4/2009 5:59:29 PM] B says: and awful at others
[4/4/2009 5:59:40 PM] B says: same with Ireland and Germany and France and India etc
[4/4/2009 5:59:48 PM] N says: i agree
[4/4/2009 5:59:53 PM] B says: but to understand the situation you have to look very carefully at the data
[4/4/2009 6:00:19 PM] B says: for example, on international exams students leaving school in the US rank at 30th-40th place
[4/4/2009 6:00:29 PM] B says: the US spends more per pupil on education
[4/4/2009 6:00:33 PM] B says: and gets terrible results
[4/4/2009 6:00:37 PM] B says: now that is disturbing
[4/4/2009 6:00:38 PM] N says: i have no prob but when somone says something u attack
[4/4/2009 6:00:39 PM] B says: but true
[4/4/2009 6:00:55 PM] B says: some want to claim that the US has the best education ...period
[4/4/2009 6:00:59 PM] B says: it has some good points
[4/4/2009 6:01:08 PM] B says: but overall it is very disturbing
[4/4/2009 6:01:11 PM] B says: a HUGE waste of money
[4/4/2009 6:01:31 PM] B says: one cannot fix the problems unless you can identify them clearly
[4/4/2009 6:01:41 PM] N says: its u that starts the argument
[4/4/2009 6:01:41 PM] B says: and believe me, we have problems that need to be fixed here
[4/4/2009 6:01:54 PM] B says: well if you make a claim, you better back it up with data
[4/4/2009 6:02:10 PM] B says: I can back up my claims about the strengths and weaknesses of the US education system with data
[4/4/2009 6:02:16 PM] N says: and when outsiders hear u they turn in discust
[4/4/2009 6:02:22 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 6:02:28 PM] B says: that is why they call it "skypeassholes"
[4/4/2009 6:02:43 PM] N says: nobody listens to u
[4/4/2009 6:02:49 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 6:03:09 PM] B says: Well I had a pretty large fan base for someone no one listened to
[4/4/2009 6:03:13 PM] B says: but sure if you say so
[4/4/2009 6:03:33 PM] N says: dream on
[4/4/2009 6:04:04 PM] N says: if u had u wouldnt be texting me
[4/4/2009 6:04:07 PM] B says: well we can no longer gauge it
[4/4/2009 6:04:11 PM] B says: since skypecasts are gone
[4/4/2009 6:05:54 PM] N says: in the end everyone from the outside had left u were only talking to the converted
[4/4/2009 6:06:22 PM] B says: oh yeah?
[4/4/2009 6:06:23 PM] B says: haha
[4/4/2009 6:06:25 PM] B says: oh ok
[4/4/2009 6:06:31 PM] B says: you can believe whatever you like
[4/4/2009 6:06:54 PM] N says: u know
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
