It is interesting to see how political correctness colors conversations in Skypeland. One can also see how different politically correct views are in different countries and different cultures.
For example, it is clearly politically correct in many cultures to characterize the US as some sort of international bully, wantonly attacking other groups across the globe. Even in the US, the politically correct "Thought Police" adopt this view. This gives political cover to conspiracy theorists who believe that 911 was a false flag operation by the US government to give it license to attack poor defenseless Iraq and Al Qaeda.
It has also become politically correct to be anti-Semitic. Amazingly, in a few short years, the culture that nurtured assorted communist and socialist elements, championed civil rights around the world, and gave rise to the Kibbutz Movement is now vilified as a bastion of right wing reactionary mossbacks.
In a very short period, Sadam Hussein has been rebranded as some sort of champion of human rights and democracy. Osama Bin Laden is no longer looked at as some sort of international criminal and terrorist, but merely a puppet of the evil CIA.
It is politically correct to view Islamic culture as progressive and harmless and blameless. Somehow, Mutah marriage, female circumcision, honor killing, polygamy, unequal treatment of women, stoning, death penalties for homosexuality, suicide bombing of women and children, torture for minor "crimes", and repressive religious dictatorships are all ignored, or judged to be irrelevant, or blamed on the West because the West has kept Islamic societies impoverished.
And now, we get a little glimpse of the Obama Administration's version of political correctness. Black Panther intimidation of voters at the polls in November of 2008 resulted in charges being filed against 3 black men. These men dressed in military style uniforms and stood outside voting locations in Philadelphia (and possibly other locales) brandishing weapons and insulting those who wanted to vote with racial slurs. According to the Washington Times lead article on May 29, 2009, career lawyers at the Justice Department were overruled by Obama Administration officials and the charges were dropped. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Amazing. Disappointing. But sadly, not too surprising.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Skanky slut
Men and women often see things a bit differently, and this is frequently observable in Skypeland. Recently a few events in Skypeland have had me thinking about this a little more.
C is a man from the UK who has moved to China to be with a lady he met in Skypeland. C is from Yorkshire, but does not seem to be on the absolute bottom of the barrel like Mucus and Mrs. B. C has a deep streak of hatred of the United States, which he has revealed a few times in unguarded moments. For example, C hopes there will be a military confrontation between the US and China, and enthusiastically predicts that the virtuous China will dominate the evil US in any military enounter.
C positively swoons when he describes the pleasures of living in China. One of the things that C likes best about China is the "female landscape" there. C likes Chinese women, and he makes no bones about it. C asserts that Chinese women are much prettier and more attractive than UK or American women. In addition, C says Chinese women "love to fuck" and has many stories of lads from the UK and the US who moved to China so they could "get their rods greased". Chinese women are particularly drawn to Westerners because of the prospect of getting access to Western immigration documents, according to C. C told us about a couple of American guys who were deported for "excessive porking" when some of the Chinese women realized that these boys had been playing the field.
Q, a leggy American goddess, launched into a full frontal attack after hearing this account. While the American men were all listening to this description of C's antics in China with rapt attention, Q's blood was boiling. Q alleged that C is so ugly that he can't get an American woman. C likes Chinese women because "that is all he can get", in Q's opinion. Q contends that Chinese women are all 4 foot tall beasts with unibrows, fat faces and sloping foreheads. Q declared that Chinese women "have no boobs" and all are "butt ugly". I did not have the impression that C's account offended many of the men listening, but it certainly hit one of Q's hot buttons.
C is not the only Westerner living in China who visits Skypeland. Hiney's "butt-kisser" U is an American living in China, who has also hinted that part of the reason that he is in China is to take advantage of similar "opportunities". Like C, U likes to give the impression that he has his finger on the pulse of the Chinese public opinion and is well connected with Chinese government officials. U makes some outrageous statements about Chinese views; for example, U has claimed that the Chinese elite feel that the US should leave South Korea and Japan, and let China take over their defense, and then all will be well. U, in his typically moronic fashion, seems to think this is a viable option and that because the US has not embraced this solution, the US is clearly a belligerent bully.
Like many in Skypeland, I get constant "friend requests" from foreigners. However, because one of my user names has the word "furniture" in it, I get many contact requests from Chinese women representing Chinese furniture manufacturers. Many of these women have photos on their profiles, and if one can judge from that, they are beautiful.
When I described these Chinese women in Skypeland, I could tell that Q was pretty skeptical. In response, Q told everyone present that all Chinese women are like "ugly little yellow monkeys".
However, Q forgot that many times we have Chinese men in Skypeland listening. One of them, P from Shanghai, overheard these comments. I could tell that P was nonplussed, since he did not think Chinese women are all dogs.
I tried to lighten the mood. I revealed that I sent these Chinese women's Skype contact information to some of the Chinese guys that visit Skypeland. To date, none have hooked up as far as I know. Maybe these Chinese boys should inquire about buying a chair. Or make up a Skype username with the word "sofa" in it.
Another example of the different ways that males and females judge certain situations arose the other day. WW has a thing for young ladies who shed their habiliment for remuneration. That is, WW likes girls who are paid for raiment removal. WW has volunteered at a defrockery or two, and therefore is well-acquainted with females who have adopted this avocation. There are many pictures floating around the internet of a diminutive WW standing next to some striking Amazon who towers over him by a head or two.
I remarked that WW's female companions are attractive, and this raised Q's dander considerably. WW was not able to respond because of computer problems, but he was treated to a long diatribe from Q who said that all of WW's women were "skanky sluts", "whores" and worse. Q said WW's girlfriend looked like she had been "ridden hard and put away wet".
None of this seemed to bother WW particularly. Here is a sequence of text messages from WW I received while Q was deprecating WW's women:
[12:14:23 AM] WW says: I am here
[12:14:27 AM] WW says: unmute me
[12:14:28 AM] WW says: :)
[12:14:52 AM] WW says: that wasn't nice Q
[ 12:15:30 AM] WW says: true
[12:15:37 AM] WW says: she can be a good girl though
[12:16:27 AM] WW says: can be
[12:16:37 AM] WW says: she's 42 what do u expect
By and large, men are not put off by a woman who "looks a bit experienced" and might even be a "high mileage unit", with a few more "city miles" than "highway miles". However, to a woman, this is the worst possible insult. Therefore, this is one of the first weapons a woman relies on when she wants to attack other females.
The shrill shrew J lobbed this charge at assorted women who frequent a Skypeland venue when she threw a tantrum in response to my admission that I did not trust her cyber boyfriend, the mystery man A:
[4/20/2009 7:35:05 PM] J says: I dont need to listen to drunks, desperate women who slut themselves out to any man who will come their way, or morons.
From context, it is very clear that Q was the primary target of this snide statement. J has made many similar nasty comments about others who visit this room, particularly a couple of very pleasant ladies that everyone else likes (In typical hypercritical fashion, J has leveled charges against me that I similarly belittled others in my text messages to her. I dispute this of course, and I have plenty of evidence showing that the opposite is closer to reality.). Probably out of a misplaced sense of chivalry, I have not yet made public most of J's damning text messages, which reflect very negatively on her. Should I?
Another example of the differences between men and women's attitudes has arisen in discussions of the fabled "dutch oven". Most men seem to feel this is a bit of light-hearted fun that a man can have with a woman in bed. Almost all women seem to have a very different opinion, causing men to explode into gales of laughter whenever the topic is broached. The moderator T recounted a story of a time he elicited outraged yelps from his cat. This feline liked to sleep under the covers, and experienced a nice dutch oven because of T's nocturnal gaseous emissions.
Last night the lovely temptress M, who previously expressed her disgust with dutch ovens, shocked a Skypeland discussion with her revelation that she herself had actually introduced a family pet or two to the delights of the "dutch oven". So perhaps females only pretend to be repulsed by dutch ovens for comedic purposes. Or maybe this admission from the gorgeous M might be added to the evidence fueling the rumors that M is really a "chick with a dick".
C is a man from the UK who has moved to China to be with a lady he met in Skypeland. C is from Yorkshire, but does not seem to be on the absolute bottom of the barrel like Mucus and Mrs. B. C has a deep streak of hatred of the United States, which he has revealed a few times in unguarded moments. For example, C hopes there will be a military confrontation between the US and China, and enthusiastically predicts that the virtuous China will dominate the evil US in any military enounter.
C positively swoons when he describes the pleasures of living in China. One of the things that C likes best about China is the "female landscape" there. C likes Chinese women, and he makes no bones about it. C asserts that Chinese women are much prettier and more attractive than UK or American women. In addition, C says Chinese women "love to fuck" and has many stories of lads from the UK and the US who moved to China so they could "get their rods greased". Chinese women are particularly drawn to Westerners because of the prospect of getting access to Western immigration documents, according to C. C told us about a couple of American guys who were deported for "excessive porking" when some of the Chinese women realized that these boys had been playing the field.
Q, a leggy American goddess, launched into a full frontal attack after hearing this account. While the American men were all listening to this description of C's antics in China with rapt attention, Q's blood was boiling. Q alleged that C is so ugly that he can't get an American woman. C likes Chinese women because "that is all he can get", in Q's opinion. Q contends that Chinese women are all 4 foot tall beasts with unibrows, fat faces and sloping foreheads. Q declared that Chinese women "have no boobs" and all are "butt ugly". I did not have the impression that C's account offended many of the men listening, but it certainly hit one of Q's hot buttons.
C is not the only Westerner living in China who visits Skypeland. Hiney's "butt-kisser" U is an American living in China, who has also hinted that part of the reason that he is in China is to take advantage of similar "opportunities". Like C, U likes to give the impression that he has his finger on the pulse of the Chinese public opinion and is well connected with Chinese government officials. U makes some outrageous statements about Chinese views; for example, U has claimed that the Chinese elite feel that the US should leave South Korea and Japan, and let China take over their defense, and then all will be well. U, in his typically moronic fashion, seems to think this is a viable option and that because the US has not embraced this solution, the US is clearly a belligerent bully.
Like many in Skypeland, I get constant "friend requests" from foreigners. However, because one of my user names has the word "furniture" in it, I get many contact requests from Chinese women representing Chinese furniture manufacturers. Many of these women have photos on their profiles, and if one can judge from that, they are beautiful.
When I described these Chinese women in Skypeland, I could tell that Q was pretty skeptical. In response, Q told everyone present that all Chinese women are like "ugly little yellow monkeys".
However, Q forgot that many times we have Chinese men in Skypeland listening. One of them, P from Shanghai, overheard these comments. I could tell that P was nonplussed, since he did not think Chinese women are all dogs.
I tried to lighten the mood. I revealed that I sent these Chinese women's Skype contact information to some of the Chinese guys that visit Skypeland. To date, none have hooked up as far as I know. Maybe these Chinese boys should inquire about buying a chair. Or make up a Skype username with the word "sofa" in it.
Another example of the different ways that males and females judge certain situations arose the other day. WW has a thing for young ladies who shed their habiliment for remuneration. That is, WW likes girls who are paid for raiment removal. WW has volunteered at a defrockery or two, and therefore is well-acquainted with females who have adopted this avocation. There are many pictures floating around the internet of a diminutive WW standing next to some striking Amazon who towers over him by a head or two.
I remarked that WW's female companions are attractive, and this raised Q's dander considerably. WW was not able to respond because of computer problems, but he was treated to a long diatribe from Q who said that all of WW's women were "skanky sluts", "whores" and worse. Q said WW's girlfriend looked like she had been "ridden hard and put away wet".
None of this seemed to bother WW particularly. Here is a sequence of text messages from WW I received while Q was deprecating WW's women:
[12:14:23 AM] WW says: I am here
[12:14:27 AM] WW says: unmute me
[12:14:28 AM] WW says: :)
[12:14:52 AM] WW says: that wasn't nice Q
[ 12:15:30 AM] WW says: true
[12:15:37 AM] WW says: she can be a good girl though
[12:16:27 AM] WW says: can be
[12:16:37 AM] WW says: she's 42 what do u expect
By and large, men are not put off by a woman who "looks a bit experienced" and might even be a "high mileage unit", with a few more "city miles" than "highway miles". However, to a woman, this is the worst possible insult. Therefore, this is one of the first weapons a woman relies on when she wants to attack other females.
The shrill shrew J lobbed this charge at assorted women who frequent a Skypeland venue when she threw a tantrum in response to my admission that I did not trust her cyber boyfriend, the mystery man A:
[4/20/2009 7:35:05 PM] J says: I dont need to listen to drunks, desperate women who slut themselves out to any man who will come their way, or morons.
From context, it is very clear that Q was the primary target of this snide statement. J has made many similar nasty comments about others who visit this room, particularly a couple of very pleasant ladies that everyone else likes (In typical hypercritical fashion, J has leveled charges against me that I similarly belittled others in my text messages to her. I dispute this of course, and I have plenty of evidence showing that the opposite is closer to reality.). Probably out of a misplaced sense of chivalry, I have not yet made public most of J's damning text messages, which reflect very negatively on her. Should I?
Another example of the differences between men and women's attitudes has arisen in discussions of the fabled "dutch oven". Most men seem to feel this is a bit of light-hearted fun that a man can have with a woman in bed. Almost all women seem to have a very different opinion, causing men to explode into gales of laughter whenever the topic is broached. The moderator T recounted a story of a time he elicited outraged yelps from his cat. This feline liked to sleep under the covers, and experienced a nice dutch oven because of T's nocturnal gaseous emissions.
Last night the lovely temptress M, who previously expressed her disgust with dutch ovens, shocked a Skypeland discussion with her revelation that she herself had actually introduced a family pet or two to the delights of the "dutch oven". So perhaps females only pretend to be repulsed by dutch ovens for comedic purposes. Or maybe this admission from the gorgeous M might be added to the evidence fueling the rumors that M is really a "chick with a dick".
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Yorkshire airlines
The more I listen in certain quarters in Skypeland, the more I have to wonder. I told Mucus and Mrs. B that I had found an "advertisement" about "Yorkshire Airlines" on youtube and I would play it for them. They were skeptical, but curious.
The "advertisement" was a fake, presented as a skit on a UK television program. I played it for several in the room because I thought it was mildly funny, but Mucus and Mrs. B missed it. Later Mrs. B asked me if Yorkshire Airlines was real or not. I said Yorkshire Airlines was not real; it was just a joke. I told him it was from a television program. However, this did not stop Mrs. B, who apparently asked all the friends he knew if they had heard of Yorkshire Airlines. None of them had.
The more Mrs. B asked, the more annoyed he became, positive that this proved how superior he was to me and how stupid I am. I was astounded at how irate he became at my reference to this fake airline advertisement. Somehow, I get the impression he is so slow, that he does not quite realize when the joke is on him.
Ooohkay. Well now we know. Yep, a window licker I guess.
The "advertisement" was a fake, presented as a skit on a UK television program. I played it for several in the room because I thought it was mildly funny, but Mucus and Mrs. B missed it. Later Mrs. B asked me if Yorkshire Airlines was real or not. I said Yorkshire Airlines was not real; it was just a joke. I told him it was from a television program. However, this did not stop Mrs. B, who apparently asked all the friends he knew if they had heard of Yorkshire Airlines. None of them had.
The more Mrs. B asked, the more annoyed he became, positive that this proved how superior he was to me and how stupid I am. I was astounded at how irate he became at my reference to this fake airline advertisement. Somehow, I get the impression he is so slow, that he does not quite realize when the joke is on him.
Ooohkay. Well now we know. Yep, a window licker I guess.
Hostile to women
There are disputes that arise all the time in Skypeland. The incomparably incomprehensible Mrs. B and his moronic sidekick Mucus attacked me today. Mrs. B told me how irate he was that I had characterized him as being anti-Jewish and anti-Israel and said I am incredibly direspectful of women. As usual, they would not allow me to respond to these charges, so I will do it here.
In numerous instances, Mucus and Mrs. B (and a few others) happen across some huge argument and jump in without knowing what is going on. For instance, when secular Jew D and I were involved in a very serious defense of Jews and Israel from the Holocaust denier CD, Mucus and Mrs. B butted in to try to silence D and myself. I have seen this many other times as well however. When Mucus and Mrs. B try to silence one side of a discussion, they are supporting the opposite side. So if Mucus and Mrs. B try to stop me from answering an attack by a Holocaust denier, they are aligning themselves with a Holocaust denier. As the saying goes, if you go to bed with dogs, you might wake up with fleas.
However, this is not the only thing I have observed Mucus and Mrs. B do. They "just" ask leading questions about the Holocaust, or Judaism, or Holocaust denial, or the "father" of Holocaust denial Paul Rassinier (1906-1967). In addition, Mucus and Mrs. B seem to always defend Muslims and the Palestinians, no matter what atrocities they are involved in.
For these reasons, I categorize Mucus, and to a lesser extent, Mrs. B as harboring anti-semitic views and negative feelings towards Israel. Of course, there is no question that Mucus and Mrs. B are stridently anti-American.
However, Mrs. B and Mucus have also joined forces to attack me for being "disrespectful to women". In particular, Mrs. B and Mucus said I was unfair to the shrill shrew J, as well as to R. Mrs. B claimed that I stayed away from a given Skypeland venue for a month afterward because I was "sulking". I disagree with these claims and take umbrage at this characterization:
*I go out of my way to treat women in Skypeland better than most men, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of chivalry.
*I have not released J's personal information, as she has done to me, not once, not twice, but at least three times. I have not yet done so to her, although I have threatened to do so and considered it.
*J has gone out of her way to try to belittle, insult, attack and threaten me repeatedly.
*J's reason to launch a "war" on me is because I said I do not trust her boyfriend/mentor the mystery man A. This is within my rights to do, as far as I know.
*J's dispute with me was heightened considerably when I observed that most males I know have a problem with the mystery man A, except for fellow conspiracy theorists and anti-Americans and malcontents, but several women (all with a bad track record with men) all have expressed a different opinion. For this, I was branded as "sexist" and evil. I have not responded in kind, although I am in possession of several nonpublic text messages that reveal J in a very negative light that I have not yet published.
*I have only given J a tiny taste of what she has earned with her attitude and behavior. I have not even done to her what she has been glad to do to me, multiple times.
*One interaction described was the result of frustration. Not only have I explained this repeatedly in public, but I explained this event in detail to R and apologized to R, which she accepted.
*I have twice stayed away from the Skypeland venue Mrs. B referred to, but neither because of this episode. In both cases I stayed away because of demands that I not challenge certain views promoting conspiracy theories, or anti-American and anti-Jewish views. I reserve the right to not visit such venues because they hold very little interest to me. Why do I want to sit and be lectured about things I disagree with and not be allowed to respond? I would rather leave. I guess Mrs. B and Mucus believe there is a law that they must be allowed to present their views unimpeded. I think not.
In addition, Mucus' and Mrs. B's behavior towards women is quite wanting, in my opinion. They should be the last to cast aspersions on the behavior of others. For example, I am in possession of some very ugly statements Mucus made about J when she turned down his sexual overtures. Also, Mucus and Mrs. B gleefully encourage Mr. Wee Wee Hands' unwelcome advances towards women. I did not notice Mrs. B or Mucus defending women against stomach-turning attacks by the bathroom contractor RL either. In addition, the status of Mucus' personal relationships with women is well known, and also a matter of some serious concern. Mucus wants to criticize me in this regard? I have dozens of text messages from others in Skypeland affirming that Mucus is a well-known woman-hater. Their blind support of the mystery man A with his record in this area is also something that gives me pause.
In short, I am not going to use Mucus and Mrs. B as examples of proper comportment. And I reserve the right to be annoyed with a woman who has attacked me, particularly when she is operating as a puppet for someone who has threatened me extensively. I leave it to my audience to decide if I am hostile to women or not, particularly compared to Mucus and Mrs. B.
In numerous instances, Mucus and Mrs. B (and a few others) happen across some huge argument and jump in without knowing what is going on. For instance, when secular Jew D and I were involved in a very serious defense of Jews and Israel from the Holocaust denier CD, Mucus and Mrs. B butted in to try to silence D and myself. I have seen this many other times as well however. When Mucus and Mrs. B try to silence one side of a discussion, they are supporting the opposite side. So if Mucus and Mrs. B try to stop me from answering an attack by a Holocaust denier, they are aligning themselves with a Holocaust denier. As the saying goes, if you go to bed with dogs, you might wake up with fleas.
However, this is not the only thing I have observed Mucus and Mrs. B do. They "just" ask leading questions about the Holocaust, or Judaism, or Holocaust denial, or the "father" of Holocaust denial Paul Rassinier (1906-1967). In addition, Mucus and Mrs. B seem to always defend Muslims and the Palestinians, no matter what atrocities they are involved in.
For these reasons, I categorize Mucus, and to a lesser extent, Mrs. B as harboring anti-semitic views and negative feelings towards Israel. Of course, there is no question that Mucus and Mrs. B are stridently anti-American.
However, Mrs. B and Mucus have also joined forces to attack me for being "disrespectful to women". In particular, Mrs. B and Mucus said I was unfair to the shrill shrew J, as well as to R. Mrs. B claimed that I stayed away from a given Skypeland venue for a month afterward because I was "sulking". I disagree with these claims and take umbrage at this characterization:
*I go out of my way to treat women in Skypeland better than most men, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of chivalry.
*I have not released J's personal information, as she has done to me, not once, not twice, but at least three times. I have not yet done so to her, although I have threatened to do so and considered it.
*J has gone out of her way to try to belittle, insult, attack and threaten me repeatedly.
*J's reason to launch a "war" on me is because I said I do not trust her boyfriend/mentor the mystery man A. This is within my rights to do, as far as I know.
*J's dispute with me was heightened considerably when I observed that most males I know have a problem with the mystery man A, except for fellow conspiracy theorists and anti-Americans and malcontents, but several women (all with a bad track record with men) all have expressed a different opinion. For this, I was branded as "sexist" and evil. I have not responded in kind, although I am in possession of several nonpublic text messages that reveal J in a very negative light that I have not yet published.
*I have only given J a tiny taste of what she has earned with her attitude and behavior. I have not even done to her what she has been glad to do to me, multiple times.
*One interaction described was the result of frustration. Not only have I explained this repeatedly in public, but I explained this event in detail to R and apologized to R, which she accepted.
*I have twice stayed away from the Skypeland venue Mrs. B referred to, but neither because of this episode. In both cases I stayed away because of demands that I not challenge certain views promoting conspiracy theories, or anti-American and anti-Jewish views. I reserve the right to not visit such venues because they hold very little interest to me. Why do I want to sit and be lectured about things I disagree with and not be allowed to respond? I would rather leave. I guess Mrs. B and Mucus believe there is a law that they must be allowed to present their views unimpeded. I think not.
In addition, Mucus' and Mrs. B's behavior towards women is quite wanting, in my opinion. They should be the last to cast aspersions on the behavior of others. For example, I am in possession of some very ugly statements Mucus made about J when she turned down his sexual overtures. Also, Mucus and Mrs. B gleefully encourage Mr. Wee Wee Hands' unwelcome advances towards women. I did not notice Mrs. B or Mucus defending women against stomach-turning attacks by the bathroom contractor RL either. In addition, the status of Mucus' personal relationships with women is well known, and also a matter of some serious concern. Mucus wants to criticize me in this regard? I have dozens of text messages from others in Skypeland affirming that Mucus is a well-known woman-hater. Their blind support of the mystery man A with his record in this area is also something that gives me pause.
In short, I am not going to use Mucus and Mrs. B as examples of proper comportment. And I reserve the right to be annoyed with a woman who has attacked me, particularly when she is operating as a puppet for someone who has threatened me extensively. I leave it to my audience to decide if I am hostile to women or not, particularly compared to Mucus and Mrs. B.
An inside job
There are a lot of flakes in Skypeland. Tuskie-poo, or TP for short, is a 20 year old pothead who lives in Florida and claims to have about 2 years of college under his belt. It is unlikely that TP's studies are in any technical field, since TP does not seem to know any science or engineering or anything even remotely technical. We call him TP since he is the kind of guy that is likely to walk around all day with a bit of used toilet paper stuck to one of his shoes.
TP does not work and is stoned every day. TP plans to move to Mexico to grow his own food and weed since he is disgusted with the US. TP believes that the atomic bombs used on Japan were just "random events" done by an evil US on a Japan that had already surrendered, or a Japan that would have surrendered if they had only been asked.
TP is as ardent believer in "the inside job"; that is, the theory that the 911 attacks were planned and orchestrated by the US government as some sort of covert operation. The people who claim this is true believe that there is a massive cover-up by the government and this "false flag" operation was used as an excuse to attack the innocent Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, as well as remove Sadam Hussein from power.
TP's main interest is the collapse of Building Seven in the World Trade Center complex since it was not hit by any airplanes, but still came down. TP thinks that the only way Building Seven could have fallen down in the way it did is through controlled demolition.
TP has been a proud Inside Job activist, showing up at his Florida town council to demand that they investigate 911, marching in the streets in Florida with a bullhorn yelling about the Inside Job and writing a letter to the FBI demanding that they investigate 911. The FBI sent TP a nice form letter which he proudly brandishes as proof that he is being taken seriously by the highest authorities.
TP fervently believes the piles of youtube videos and google videos that have accumulated since 911 purporting to show that Building Seven (also known as BS) was brought down by controlled demolition. TP demands that all rooms in Skypeland that he frequents talk about nothing else but Building Seven when he is present. All conversations with TP end up focused on BS.
Unfortunately, TP not only has a one-track mind, but he also is given to making insults and assorted death threats. Even when people are extremely nice to him, and give him a chance to lecture, he invariably threatens to hunt them down and kill them. This has happened at least half a dozen times that I know of.
After TP makes a death threat, people on his contact list block him. He also gets banned from Skypeland forums. This drives TP wild, and he tries over and over and over again to get back into the Skypeland discussions so he can preach about the Inside Job, how World War II was a false flag operation and BS.
Last night TP returned to one pro-American Skypeland forum. Since it was a slow night, the moderator allowed him to speak for the first time in months. Sure enough, within a few sentences TP was preaching about BS. TP tried desperately to recruit people who did not subscribe to his BS theories to come on his new internet radio show, which reportedly has about 6 or 7 listeners. I guess TP realizes that having several people who all agree on BS sit around and listen to each other does not make for a very interesting show.
Last night, TP claimed he had graduated from college (when did that happen?), and that he had access to an immense amount of "peer reviewed" studies showing that BS was an inside job. We asked him to show us. He promised to do so.
He said that the studies showing BS was a false flag operation were all performed using the "scientific method". TP stated that everyone else in the room was stupid and did not know what the scientific method was, particularly its new formulation, since he is young and open-minded. At that point, the room included a current chemistry professor, a retired biochemistry professor, 2 physics researchers, a medical school professor, a rocket scientist and a total of about 6 masters degree holders, 3 PhDs in science and an MD by my count. Of course, TP was asked what he meant by this "new scientific method" and he said that in the new scientific method, tests and studies had to be repeated over and over. Does not sound that new to me, frankly.
I said I would add TP's contact information on Skype, since so many young ladies had said things like, "TP Is so cute. He is just a little peanut". To me, it seems like it would be more accurate to say "TP is just a little nut". However, for to satisfy these women, I said I would accept TP's contact information and give him a chance. Aftert hearing this, TP sent me a text message:
[5/27/2009 11:11:31 PM] TP says: im a skype pimp
[5/27/2009 11:11:38 PM] TP says: i got girls from all over
[5/27/2009 11:11:56 PM] TP says: tyland,aussi,england,moraco,ukraine,ect
However, a bit earlier TP had told us that he "hated lesbians" since they were "taking all the pussy" and he "needed all the pussy he could get". It sounds to me that the only real Inside Jobs TP is associated with are the chores around the house his mother tries to get him to do, and "choking his chicken" (at least I hope TP does not do that in public, the way Mr. Wee Wee Hands does).
We said that TP did not know the basic principles which he was using to demonstrate that BS was destroyed by controlled demolition. We asked TP what "free fall" was, and he was unable to describe it. TP even said that buildings would fall faster in Mars since there was more gravity on Mars than there is on earth. Asked about air resistance, TP was not able to describe the effects of air resistance accurately. When TP was told he needed to learn about basic physics before he could evaluate these inside job theories and claims, he told us not to "patronize" him.
TP uses the word "patronize" so often, with no apparent understanding of what the word means, that one of the Skypeland participants advised him to stop using it. Patronize, patronize, patronize; you would think TP is a hot dog stand. However, from TP's attitude about lesbians, it is clear that TP is not serving up many frankfurters.
TP said he did not get any of his ideas from the internet or any internet videos, such as those made by talk show host Alex Jones, since he is a "free thinker", but somehow almost everything TP said is a carbon copy of what is claimed in one 911 truther video after another. TP said repeatedly that he never reads or watches anything produced by Alex Jones.
I said that if you gave me a button to click every time I heard something ridiculous or incorrect in one of these 911 truther videos, I would click the button every few seconds. TP accused me of making an "ad hominem" attack with this statement. Someone tried to explain to TP that an ad hominem attack would be a personal attack, like telling TP he was a "fucking idiot". However, saying there are problems with the truther arguments was not an ad hominem attack. I do not think TP absorbed this information.
When we asked TP repeatedly for a peer-reviewed study, he first provided me with a letter to the editor in a minor Florida newspaper. Then he gave me the link to an editorial by Alex Jones in the journal "911 Studies", which is published by an operation equivalent to a "vanity press". In this editorial, Alex Jones berates his fellow truthers for not creating peer-reviewed studies using the scientific method so they can be taken seriously by the mainstream. Finally TP directed me to a google video of a lecture given by architect Richard Gage who founded the Architects for 911 Truth. As I started to watch this 2 hour video, I saw it was replete with all the same nonsense I had seen dozens of times before:
*Gage made the claim that no other building had ever collapsed in this way because of fire. Just because Gage claims this is true means nothing. I need to see this backed up by a massive statistical study of all the high rise building fires for decades, organized by building design. I need quantitative measurements and data. I can't evaluate the gratuitous assertions of one guy.
*Gage repeated the claim that only a controlled demolition could result in the "pancaking" of the floors. Again, I need to see the evidence backing up this assertion. Someone just making it means nothing. This statement also is contradicted by the NIST study and some recent work by an MIT professor.
*Gage made the claim that the dust cloud after the collapse was only consistent with a controlled demolition. Oh really? Prove it.
*The video included the claim that "squibs" were seen being set off to bring down the building. Oh yes? Where is the data? The evidence?
*Once again I heard the claim that there was "unusual insider trading" before 911. Where is the statistical analysis and the data?
After just a few minutes of this video, I decided I had seen enough. There was nothing new in it that I saw. The video is long and tedious and not a peer-reviewed study. There is no scientific evidence in the video. I am not going to sit around and watch hours and hours more of this garbage. What is the point?
The NIST study was quite detailed, and if any truther wants to be taken seriously, they are going to have to repeat and refute the multi-year study that the NIST team did. And then get it published, in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal; not in something like 911 Studies. TP said I was a "fucking coward" and otherwise berated me for not wanting to waste hours and hours showing where these truther conspiracy theories are wrong. However, I think that is completely futile, since 911 truthers like TP will not listen to anything anyone else has to say on the subject, and ignore all the other information that makes their theory unlikely at best.
Then TP made it clear that he is at least being fed rumors and other information by the Mystery Man A and his minion, the shrill shrew and graduate student J. I suspect that it is more likely that TP is being "handled" by this mystery man troll. TP tried to pump me for personal information, such as what I look like and where I live. All pretty transparent and amateurish. Then TP asked if I feared for my life and then said I should fear for my life. Oh yes? Why is that? Because I do not find the truther arguments compelling? So TP will threaten me, just as the mystery man A does? Sounds rational.
Exactly true to form, TP had made another death threat. And that is a repeatable experiment, as required by the scientific method. Every time TP is allowed to open his mouth, he starts to talk about BS, and makes a death threat. Perfectly repeatable and perfectly predictable.
And so once again, TP was blocked and banned.
Addendum
TP returned to a Skypeland room today and announced to the shrill shrew J that he was "now allowed to come to the room once in a while". I sat and listened, and then said what I had heard from TP the night before, that TP had tried to get ahold of my information for J and the mystery man A. And then threatened me.
J flew into a rage at this, and said she hoped I would enjoy "having the police come to my door again". I would welcome a police visit, and even a discussion with the local federal prosecutor and the FBI, and I would be sure to tell them exactly why J and mystery man A are upset with me, and then consider violating their privacy the way they have violated mine.
TP does not work and is stoned every day. TP plans to move to Mexico to grow his own food and weed since he is disgusted with the US. TP believes that the atomic bombs used on Japan were just "random events" done by an evil US on a Japan that had already surrendered, or a Japan that would have surrendered if they had only been asked.
TP is as ardent believer in "the inside job"; that is, the theory that the 911 attacks were planned and orchestrated by the US government as some sort of covert operation. The people who claim this is true believe that there is a massive cover-up by the government and this "false flag" operation was used as an excuse to attack the innocent Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, as well as remove Sadam Hussein from power.
TP's main interest is the collapse of Building Seven in the World Trade Center complex since it was not hit by any airplanes, but still came down. TP thinks that the only way Building Seven could have fallen down in the way it did is through controlled demolition.
TP has been a proud Inside Job activist, showing up at his Florida town council to demand that they investigate 911, marching in the streets in Florida with a bullhorn yelling about the Inside Job and writing a letter to the FBI demanding that they investigate 911. The FBI sent TP a nice form letter which he proudly brandishes as proof that he is being taken seriously by the highest authorities.
TP fervently believes the piles of youtube videos and google videos that have accumulated since 911 purporting to show that Building Seven (also known as BS) was brought down by controlled demolition. TP demands that all rooms in Skypeland that he frequents talk about nothing else but Building Seven when he is present. All conversations with TP end up focused on BS.
Unfortunately, TP not only has a one-track mind, but he also is given to making insults and assorted death threats. Even when people are extremely nice to him, and give him a chance to lecture, he invariably threatens to hunt them down and kill them. This has happened at least half a dozen times that I know of.
After TP makes a death threat, people on his contact list block him. He also gets banned from Skypeland forums. This drives TP wild, and he tries over and over and over again to get back into the Skypeland discussions so he can preach about the Inside Job, how World War II was a false flag operation and BS.
Last night TP returned to one pro-American Skypeland forum. Since it was a slow night, the moderator allowed him to speak for the first time in months. Sure enough, within a few sentences TP was preaching about BS. TP tried desperately to recruit people who did not subscribe to his BS theories to come on his new internet radio show, which reportedly has about 6 or 7 listeners. I guess TP realizes that having several people who all agree on BS sit around and listen to each other does not make for a very interesting show.
Last night, TP claimed he had graduated from college (when did that happen?), and that he had access to an immense amount of "peer reviewed" studies showing that BS was an inside job. We asked him to show us. He promised to do so.
He said that the studies showing BS was a false flag operation were all performed using the "scientific method". TP stated that everyone else in the room was stupid and did not know what the scientific method was, particularly its new formulation, since he is young and open-minded. At that point, the room included a current chemistry professor, a retired biochemistry professor, 2 physics researchers, a medical school professor, a rocket scientist and a total of about 6 masters degree holders, 3 PhDs in science and an MD by my count. Of course, TP was asked what he meant by this "new scientific method" and he said that in the new scientific method, tests and studies had to be repeated over and over. Does not sound that new to me, frankly.
I said I would add TP's contact information on Skype, since so many young ladies had said things like, "TP Is so cute. He is just a little peanut". To me, it seems like it would be more accurate to say "TP is just a little nut". However, for to satisfy these women, I said I would accept TP's contact information and give him a chance. Aftert hearing this, TP sent me a text message:
[5/27/2009 11:11:31 PM] TP says: im a skype pimp
[5/27/2009 11:11:38 PM] TP says: i got girls from all over
[5/27/2009 11:11:56 PM] TP says: tyland,aussi,england,moraco,ukraine,ect
However, a bit earlier TP had told us that he "hated lesbians" since they were "taking all the pussy" and he "needed all the pussy he could get". It sounds to me that the only real Inside Jobs TP is associated with are the chores around the house his mother tries to get him to do, and "choking his chicken" (at least I hope TP does not do that in public, the way Mr. Wee Wee Hands does).
We said that TP did not know the basic principles which he was using to demonstrate that BS was destroyed by controlled demolition. We asked TP what "free fall" was, and he was unable to describe it. TP even said that buildings would fall faster in Mars since there was more gravity on Mars than there is on earth. Asked about air resistance, TP was not able to describe the effects of air resistance accurately. When TP was told he needed to learn about basic physics before he could evaluate these inside job theories and claims, he told us not to "patronize" him.
TP uses the word "patronize" so often, with no apparent understanding of what the word means, that one of the Skypeland participants advised him to stop using it. Patronize, patronize, patronize; you would think TP is a hot dog stand. However, from TP's attitude about lesbians, it is clear that TP is not serving up many frankfurters.
TP said he did not get any of his ideas from the internet or any internet videos, such as those made by talk show host Alex Jones, since he is a "free thinker", but somehow almost everything TP said is a carbon copy of what is claimed in one 911 truther video after another. TP said repeatedly that he never reads or watches anything produced by Alex Jones.
I said that if you gave me a button to click every time I heard something ridiculous or incorrect in one of these 911 truther videos, I would click the button every few seconds. TP accused me of making an "ad hominem" attack with this statement. Someone tried to explain to TP that an ad hominem attack would be a personal attack, like telling TP he was a "fucking idiot". However, saying there are problems with the truther arguments was not an ad hominem attack. I do not think TP absorbed this information.
When we asked TP repeatedly for a peer-reviewed study, he first provided me with a letter to the editor in a minor Florida newspaper. Then he gave me the link to an editorial by Alex Jones in the journal "911 Studies", which is published by an operation equivalent to a "vanity press". In this editorial, Alex Jones berates his fellow truthers for not creating peer-reviewed studies using the scientific method so they can be taken seriously by the mainstream. Finally TP directed me to a google video of a lecture given by architect Richard Gage who founded the Architects for 911 Truth. As I started to watch this 2 hour video, I saw it was replete with all the same nonsense I had seen dozens of times before:
*Gage made the claim that no other building had ever collapsed in this way because of fire. Just because Gage claims this is true means nothing. I need to see this backed up by a massive statistical study of all the high rise building fires for decades, organized by building design. I need quantitative measurements and data. I can't evaluate the gratuitous assertions of one guy.
*Gage repeated the claim that only a controlled demolition could result in the "pancaking" of the floors. Again, I need to see the evidence backing up this assertion. Someone just making it means nothing. This statement also is contradicted by the NIST study and some recent work by an MIT professor.
*Gage made the claim that the dust cloud after the collapse was only consistent with a controlled demolition. Oh really? Prove it.
*The video included the claim that "squibs" were seen being set off to bring down the building. Oh yes? Where is the data? The evidence?
*Once again I heard the claim that there was "unusual insider trading" before 911. Where is the statistical analysis and the data?
After just a few minutes of this video, I decided I had seen enough. There was nothing new in it that I saw. The video is long and tedious and not a peer-reviewed study. There is no scientific evidence in the video. I am not going to sit around and watch hours and hours more of this garbage. What is the point?
The NIST study was quite detailed, and if any truther wants to be taken seriously, they are going to have to repeat and refute the multi-year study that the NIST team did. And then get it published, in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal; not in something like 911 Studies. TP said I was a "fucking coward" and otherwise berated me for not wanting to waste hours and hours showing where these truther conspiracy theories are wrong. However, I think that is completely futile, since 911 truthers like TP will not listen to anything anyone else has to say on the subject, and ignore all the other information that makes their theory unlikely at best.
Then TP made it clear that he is at least being fed rumors and other information by the Mystery Man A and his minion, the shrill shrew and graduate student J. I suspect that it is more likely that TP is being "handled" by this mystery man troll. TP tried to pump me for personal information, such as what I look like and where I live. All pretty transparent and amateurish. Then TP asked if I feared for my life and then said I should fear for my life. Oh yes? Why is that? Because I do not find the truther arguments compelling? So TP will threaten me, just as the mystery man A does? Sounds rational.
Exactly true to form, TP had made another death threat. And that is a repeatable experiment, as required by the scientific method. Every time TP is allowed to open his mouth, he starts to talk about BS, and makes a death threat. Perfectly repeatable and perfectly predictable.
And so once again, TP was blocked and banned.
Addendum
TP returned to a Skypeland room today and announced to the shrill shrew J that he was "now allowed to come to the room once in a while". I sat and listened, and then said what I had heard from TP the night before, that TP had tried to get ahold of my information for J and the mystery man A. And then threatened me.
J flew into a rage at this, and said she hoped I would enjoy "having the police come to my door again". I would welcome a police visit, and even a discussion with the local federal prosecutor and the FBI, and I would be sure to tell them exactly why J and mystery man A are upset with me, and then consider violating their privacy the way they have violated mine.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Window lickers
Something that is quite remarkable about Skypeland is the profusion of accents from around the world that you can hear. One of the most difficult native English accents to understand for most English speakers is probably the Yorkshire accent. The Yorkshire accent is characterized by an inability or unwillingness to pronounce consonants; there is almost a complete lack of enunciation and articulation in Yorkshireese. A few Yorkshiremen who come to Skypeland are almost completely incomprehensible, even to their fellow countrymen.
For example, in Yorkshireese, "button" sounds like "unh-onnh", "bottle" sounds like "baw-ugh", "water" sounds like "waah-ehh" and "butter" sounds like "buuh-uh". Yorkshire English resembles a series of guttural ejaculations, murmurs, mutters, grumbles and grunts, more akin to animal noises than human speech.
In places where people actually pronounce English words roughly the way they are written, youngsters who speak in this way would be sent to a "special school", riding on the "short bus". All children have had an experience in which one of their classmates leaves a huge turd in the urinal, or an impressively well-formed "steamer" on the floor of the boys room because they still have not quite figured out how to use a toilet at the age of 9. Very soon after some kid has "pinched off" an errant anal loaf in the wrong place, the adults recognize this as a signature of something that can not be spoken of openly, but only whispered about in hushed tones; "Little Davey is a...um... tard". Almost invariably, Davey sounds like he speaks a variety of Yorkshireese and drools a bit.
Davey is next seen riding the short bus, licking the window as it departs for a mysterious destination where others of Davey's ilk gather to learn how to use glue and hopefully to pronounce consonants. The bus collects little ones who are all slightly "different"; hydrocephalics, children with Down syndrome, pinheads and so on. Spastic cross-eyed children wearing helmets and orthopedic shoes who smell a little strange. Invariably, they share one characteristic however; they all sound like they come from Yorkshire.
So to normal people, Yorkshire and its environs seem like an entire region populated by short bus riders and window lickers. When you listen to some of the nonsense that Mrs. B and Mucus come out with, and notice the pride with which they advertise their lack of A-levels, you realize that you are talking to people on the lowest rung of the intellectual ladder. Even among window lickers, there are some that are more able, and some that are less able. And Mrs B and Mucus are definitely from the group that is less able.
It is not good to be on the bottom of the barrel, if that barrel is full of a bunch of window lickers.
For example, in Yorkshireese, "button" sounds like "unh-onnh", "bottle" sounds like "baw-ugh", "water" sounds like "waah-ehh" and "butter" sounds like "buuh-uh". Yorkshire English resembles a series of guttural ejaculations, murmurs, mutters, grumbles and grunts, more akin to animal noises than human speech.
In places where people actually pronounce English words roughly the way they are written, youngsters who speak in this way would be sent to a "special school", riding on the "short bus". All children have had an experience in which one of their classmates leaves a huge turd in the urinal, or an impressively well-formed "steamer" on the floor of the boys room because they still have not quite figured out how to use a toilet at the age of 9. Very soon after some kid has "pinched off" an errant anal loaf in the wrong place, the adults recognize this as a signature of something that can not be spoken of openly, but only whispered about in hushed tones; "Little Davey is a...um... tard". Almost invariably, Davey sounds like he speaks a variety of Yorkshireese and drools a bit.
Davey is next seen riding the short bus, licking the window as it departs for a mysterious destination where others of Davey's ilk gather to learn how to use glue and hopefully to pronounce consonants. The bus collects little ones who are all slightly "different"; hydrocephalics, children with Down syndrome, pinheads and so on. Spastic cross-eyed children wearing helmets and orthopedic shoes who smell a little strange. Invariably, they share one characteristic however; they all sound like they come from Yorkshire.
So to normal people, Yorkshire and its environs seem like an entire region populated by short bus riders and window lickers. When you listen to some of the nonsense that Mrs. B and Mucus come out with, and notice the pride with which they advertise their lack of A-levels, you realize that you are talking to people on the lowest rung of the intellectual ladder. Even among window lickers, there are some that are more able, and some that are less able. And Mrs B and Mucus are definitely from the group that is less able.
It is not good to be on the bottom of the barrel, if that barrel is full of a bunch of window lickers.
Addendum
After some pondering, I realize that the Scottish variety of English is not particularly clear either. However, one might reasonably pose the question, "Is Scottish English even recognizable as English at all?" However, at least the Scots use consonants, even if they mangle the pronounciation of the words into something incomprehensible. The problem with Yorkshireese is that without consonants, a Yorkshireman sounds like a person who has not had enough "nonnutritive crude fiber" in his diet, and therefore is straining to squeeze one out.
Other varieties of English that are a bit difficult to understand, like pidgin English, Spanglish and Punjablish are the result of someone who has been taught English as a second or third language. This is far more forgivable, at least to my mind, than what passes for English in Yorkshire.
Addendum II
I think a perfect anthem for Mrs. B and Mucus might be a song, set to the tune of Britney Spears' song Womanizer:
Yorkshireman, where you from? Where you goin?
I know you got no clue bout what you're sayin
You got respect from your crew of fellow idiots and morons
But I know what you, what you are, buddy
Window licker, window licker, you're a window licker
Oh window licker oh you're a window licker buddy
You, you, you are, you, you you are
Window licker, Window licker, window licker
Sonia Sotomayor
Some forums in Skypeland discuss political issues and current events. Today President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill an upcoming vacancy on the US Supreme Court. We discussed Sotomayor's nomination. I listened all day to various news coverage of the nomination. I have to admit, I was stunned at how florid the praise was in many instances from various media figures and commentators.
I heard several claim that Sonia Sotomayor is a first rank intellect of incomparable brilliance. I investigated a bit, but I was unable to find out what her major was at Princeton or really how incredible a scholar she was. I heard similar things about Barack Obama that were impossible to confirm.
She was married in college, but divorced in a few years and is reputed to be a lesbian [1] (not that there is anything wrong with that...).
Some claimed Sotomayor is the first Hispanic nominee, [2] but in fact Benjamin Nathan Cardozo who came from a family of Portuguese Jews served on the Supreme Court from 1932-1938.
I also heard that no other member of the court has any "trial experience" but Sotomayor does. This is just the most blatant nonsense I have ever come across. A quick survey of the current sitting Supreme Court Justices shows they all have similar or even superior backgrounds in the courtroom and as lawyers. Do these reporters and analysts even do a modicum of checking before they spew this stuff? I heard many claim that Sotomayor had an incomparable amount of experience, but in the important executive powers arena, Sotomayor has less background than the other front-runners for the nomination. [3] Perhaps Obama did not want anyone on the bench who might set limits on his own power.
One commentator was excited that a Hispanic would sit on the bench, so they could "fix" the situation where several white teenagers in the Shenandoah Valley were acquitted of the murder of an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was supporting his illegal immigrant fiance and 3 children. The fiance, and the commentator, demanded that since the teenagers were white, that it was unfair that they were acquitted, and they were positive that a Hispanic judge would nail all white males since that is what Hispanics demand. No word about the law or the evidence or anything. That is all irrelevant I guess.
Here is an analysis from Robert Schlesinger of US News and World Report that speculates that Sotomayor might be so liberal and so obnoxious that it might push some left-leaning judges to the right. [4]
One claimed that her nomination has nothing to do with her being Hispanic and female, but then stated that no Republicans would be able to oppose her nomination because it was against the rules for them to oppose anyone female and anyone Hispanic (I notice that the Democrats had no problem opposing Hispanics for various comparable positions, just a short while ago). Another said that Republicans would not dare oppose this Hispanic since they had already lost 70% of all Hispanic votes by supporting the enforcement of immigration laws. Still another commentator suggested that it was against the rules and tradition for anyone to oppose any Supreme Court nomination made by the president. A conservative commentator reminded the panel about the Bork nomination that set a precedent for opposing Supreme Court nominations based on political agendas, and the liberal analysts were crestfallen. There was some whining from liberals that Sotomayor was not as much of a judicial activist as they would like. One noted that if Sotomayor was confirmed, it would mean that six of the nine Supreme Court justices were Catholic, and there was some nervousness about what might happen to abortion laws in this situation.
Yorkshire wisdom
Today, the incomparably incomprehensible indolent Mrs. B sat waiting in Skypeland for a while, reportedly hoping I would come in. I asked why he was not painting, and he said he had to be in the right mood for painting. If Mrs. B were painting portraits or artwork, I could understand, but not when he is painting one room. I guess that is why it is taking so long to paint that room; several months have gone by so far since he started to paint.
Mrs. B always seems to be full of "Yorkshire wisdom" (which I guess is translated in the Yorkshire dialect as "bullshyte"). He tried to tell me that there are no historical roots to any current wars or disputes worldwide, or that historical backgrounds to conflicts are irrelevant. Mrs. B believes that we should ignore history in places like the Balkans or the Levant. I do not think that the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Bosnians or the Serbians would agree with this viewpoint, but that is what Mrs. B claimed; one can ignore the past. In the words of Mrs B, "today is today, tomorrow is future,and yesterday is past ". Well very profound, but not very compelling.
However, as I have repeatedly asserted, perhaps we need a huge disaster with a nuclear weapon as a wake-up call. It is possible that it is necessary to kill a good 500,000 people in one fell swoop, perhaps because of a nuclear accident, or an attack by some terrorists or a rogue state. This might serve to galvanize the legions of people who have forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, or who are in denial about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalists' desire for nuclear armaments, or who believe that 911 was an inside job and that no Muslim radicals mean any harm to the US, or the West, or to Israel, or to their fellow Muslims.
I have run across numerous Islamic clerics who proudly claim that Arabs are superior in all aspects because they believe that the US used nuclear weapons against Sadam Hussein. These Imams and Mullahs assert that Sadam stood up to the most powerful weapons in the Western arsenal and survived unscathed, and this proves how superior Islam, Muslims and Arabs are. I think a demonstration of what a nuclear weapon is and can do might be necessary once in a while to refresh memories. The US offered to demonstrate the atomic bomb to the Japanese first before Hiroshima, but the Japanese turned down this offer. Perhaps a similar demonstration might set a few Muslims back on their ignorant posteriors, although it might only increase their frantic thirst to acquire such weapons for themselves so they can kill "kaffirs". Is there really any doubt that some Muslim radical would use these weapons if they got ahold of them?
It is a good thing that this world is not reliant on someone with "Yorkshire wisdom" to protect international security, and deal with the world economy. This never seems to stop Mrs. B from weighing in, extremely aggressively, on every issue.
Mrs. B always seems to be full of "Yorkshire wisdom" (which I guess is translated in the Yorkshire dialect as "bullshyte"). He tried to tell me that there are no historical roots to any current wars or disputes worldwide, or that historical backgrounds to conflicts are irrelevant. Mrs. B believes that we should ignore history in places like the Balkans or the Levant. I do not think that the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Bosnians or the Serbians would agree with this viewpoint, but that is what Mrs. B claimed; one can ignore the past. In the words of Mrs B, "today is today, tomorrow is future,and yesterday is past ". Well very profound, but not very compelling.
In spite of this attitude about history, Mrs. B and his sidekick, the "muck expert" Mucus, got themselves all worked up about an event that occurred in the past in the UK. Seventy three years ago, a couple of hundred people walked roughly 300 miles from Newcastle to London as a protest. According to these two bumbling bubble brains, 300 miles is a huge distance, and this march was allegedly an important event, "particularly at that time" (as Mucus proudly stated).
When I and others tried to point out that 300 miles is not very far, particularly on American scales, Mrs. B trotted out the same tired old excuses; "Well you can't compare because England is just a tiny little island" (somehow when talking to Mrs. B and Mucus there is some confusion as to what England is; a part of a country, a country or an island). However, distances are pretty much the same everywhere, and unless the English were of Lilliputian proportions 73 years ago, walking 300 miles is not really that big a deal and not particularly remarkable. Even a fairly small US state like Pennsylvania, which is only the 33rd largest US state, is 307 miles from its easternmost point to its westernmost point. [1] Sorry Mucus and Mrs B, you are spewing irrelevant horse pucky once again. Others do it when they are drunk or stoned. What distinguishes Mucus and Mrs. B is that they do it stone cold sober.
The continuing problems Mrs. B and Mucus seem to have with concepts like fractions, proportions and percentages are similar. Suppose that in some Skypeland discussion, someone tries to compare baldness in the US, with a population of about 305 million, and the UK, with a population of about 65 million. Mucus and Mrs. B will always confuse the issue so badly and get themselves so tied into knots that they convince themselves that no comparison is possible. However, even though comparisons are impossible, Mucus and Mrs. B will always assert extremely aggressively that the UK is superior in all respects, no matter what the facts and the evidence.
For example, suppose that baldness is claimed to be a negative attribute. If 20 % of the US is bald and 10% of the UK is bald, Mucus and Mrs. B will claim this proves the UK is superior since fewer are bald in the UK. However, if instead 20% of the US and the UK are bald, Mucus and Mrs. B will claim that the UK is superior because there are fewer bald people in the UK. If 10% of the US is bald and 60% of the UK is bald, Mucus and Mrs. B will still claim that the UK is superior because supposedly one cannot compare the US to the UK since the US is so much larger (it does not matter if it is larger in population or area or in GDP; all this is irrelevant when dealing with morons).
Last night, Mucus and Mrs. B were frantic to jump in to explain what the Nation of Islam is. It is amazing to me how they are willing and anxious to give their ridiculous opinions about things they know nothing about, particularly things in some other country they have never visited. They even demand that they be allowed to do so when someone else who is trying to explain something is trying to talk. They talk over others and spew completely uninformed claptrap. Any conversation on any subject is fair game; Mucus and Mrs. B will interrupt and then refuse to shut up. Numerous discussions die a premature death in a profusion of self-satisfied stupidity spread by the smug Mucus and Mrs. B because of their undeserved self-confidence. This is compounded by the repeated assertions by Mucus and Mrs. B that they are uneducated, which they are, and know nothing, which is also quite evident to all observers. This does not seem to stop them from butting in to demonstrate how little they know, over and over, and even belligerently cutting off those who do know something. How impressive...
Mrs. B said today that atomic bombs "work by fusion" (I guess he has never heard of fission; he was dismissive when I tried to explain the difference) and that the US should arrange for all countries to have their own nuclear arsenals. Although I understand that this idea might be attractive in a certain abstract sense, I suspect that the likelihood that some madman or fanatic is going to use nuclear weapons in the future is greatly increased by this approach. This depth of analysis is beyond Mrs. B, however. Mrs. B displays an amazing naiveté when it comes to the threats the West faces.However, as I have repeatedly asserted, perhaps we need a huge disaster with a nuclear weapon as a wake-up call. It is possible that it is necessary to kill a good 500,000 people in one fell swoop, perhaps because of a nuclear accident, or an attack by some terrorists or a rogue state. This might serve to galvanize the legions of people who have forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, or who are in denial about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalists' desire for nuclear armaments, or who believe that 911 was an inside job and that no Muslim radicals mean any harm to the US, or the West, or to Israel, or to their fellow Muslims.
I have run across numerous Islamic clerics who proudly claim that Arabs are superior in all aspects because they believe that the US used nuclear weapons against Sadam Hussein. These Imams and Mullahs assert that Sadam stood up to the most powerful weapons in the Western arsenal and survived unscathed, and this proves how superior Islam, Muslims and Arabs are. I think a demonstration of what a nuclear weapon is and can do might be necessary once in a while to refresh memories. The US offered to demonstrate the atomic bomb to the Japanese first before Hiroshima, but the Japanese turned down this offer. Perhaps a similar demonstration might set a few Muslims back on their ignorant posteriors, although it might only increase their frantic thirst to acquire such weapons for themselves so they can kill "kaffirs". Is there really any doubt that some Muslim radical would use these weapons if they got ahold of them?
It is a good thing that this world is not reliant on someone with "Yorkshire wisdom" to protect international security, and deal with the world economy. This never seems to stop Mrs. B from weighing in, extremely aggressively, on every issue.
On the horns of a dilemma
Every so often as I consider the turmoil in Skypeland, I run across an episode that is difficult for me to document for various reasons. Sometimes this is because I want to avoid revealing personal information. Other times it is because I do not want to embarrass a "friend", or do not want to oppose them in some argument they are involved in. I might want to avoid reopening old wounds in other cases. Some disputes are so complicated that it is not easy to decide what to do.
This post describes an example of a very complicated messy contentious dispute that has erupted in the last while in Skypeland. I am friends with those on both sides, and I feel that both sides are correct to a certain extent. I have avoided weighing in since it is so politically-charged and I do not want to offend any of those involved. I will attempt to describe the situation but I am nervous that I will not do a good job, and I will offend one or both sides.
D is a secular Jew and expatriate American. D is understandably sensitive about the Holocaust and Holocaust denialism. D defends Israel, with no questions asked, on almost all issues. Many enjoy baiting D and trying to get him angry, in particular the mystery man A and his associate, the graduate student J, as well as the pothead college student BT and the Holocaust denier CD. However, muck expert Mucus and pipe fitter Mrs. B have also done their part in goading D into arguments and tried to yank his chain.
Sometimes D is slightly over-aggressive in his defense of Jews and Israel. D has even irritated other Jews on occasion with his proclamations, although I think D means well. D has sometimes been so aggressive that he has alienated a few friends and supporters, as has been pointed out by the moderator Y. D vehemently denies this charge.
I think D's behavior is perfectly understandable. D has children and grandchildren, and does not want anything bad to happen to them. D believes that he is helping the cause of making sure an event like the Holocaust never happens again. D wants Israel to be safe. D is justifiably proud of Israel's accomplishments, and the contributions of Jews to the world. However, sometimes this has to expressed carefully and tactfully.
Y brings up the Holodomor, the death of millions of Ukrainians during failed attempts at collectivization during the early 1930s, whenever D becomes too enthusiastic about describing the Baba Yar atrocity, an event during which tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews were killed by the Nazis. D has recently started posting material that denies the Holodomor, which has been a staple of Soviet and communist propaganda for decades.
Anyway, this situation made me wonder why the Holocaust has so much greater historical and emotional resonance than other disasters of similar or even greater magnitude. I think there are at least several reasons:
*Although the Holodomor and other collectivization disasters cost a lot of lives, and although some deny they ever occurred, they are not used as justification to attempt the extermination an entire body of people, or to advocate the removal of a country from the map.
*Events like the Rwandan genocide or the Armenian genocide or the Cambodian killing fields might have annihilated a similar fraction of a given group, but there is no comparable serious effort by a widespread collection of people to pretend that they did not happen.
* The Holocaust is sort of an echo of similar historical events, like assorted pogroms, killing of Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the captivity of Jews during ancient times in Egypt, and the exiles of Jews to Babylon.
There is a lot of heat associated with this discussion, and not really enough light. Anyone weighing in risks getting smeared by one or both sides. I hope I will not suffer this fate.
This post describes an example of a very complicated messy contentious dispute that has erupted in the last while in Skypeland. I am friends with those on both sides, and I feel that both sides are correct to a certain extent. I have avoided weighing in since it is so politically-charged and I do not want to offend any of those involved. I will attempt to describe the situation but I am nervous that I will not do a good job, and I will offend one or both sides.
D is a secular Jew and expatriate American. D is understandably sensitive about the Holocaust and Holocaust denialism. D defends Israel, with no questions asked, on almost all issues. Many enjoy baiting D and trying to get him angry, in particular the mystery man A and his associate, the graduate student J, as well as the pothead college student BT and the Holocaust denier CD. However, muck expert Mucus and pipe fitter Mrs. B have also done their part in goading D into arguments and tried to yank his chain.
Sometimes D is slightly over-aggressive in his defense of Jews and Israel. D has even irritated other Jews on occasion with his proclamations, although I think D means well. D has sometimes been so aggressive that he has alienated a few friends and supporters, as has been pointed out by the moderator Y. D vehemently denies this charge.
I think D's behavior is perfectly understandable. D has children and grandchildren, and does not want anything bad to happen to them. D believes that he is helping the cause of making sure an event like the Holocaust never happens again. D wants Israel to be safe. D is justifiably proud of Israel's accomplishments, and the contributions of Jews to the world. However, sometimes this has to expressed carefully and tactfully.
Y brings up the Holodomor, the death of millions of Ukrainians during failed attempts at collectivization during the early 1930s, whenever D becomes too enthusiastic about describing the Baba Yar atrocity, an event during which tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews were killed by the Nazis. D has recently started posting material that denies the Holodomor, which has been a staple of Soviet and communist propaganda for decades.
Anyway, this situation made me wonder why the Holocaust has so much greater historical and emotional resonance than other disasters of similar or even greater magnitude. I think there are at least several reasons:
*Although the Holodomor and other collectivization disasters cost a lot of lives, and although some deny they ever occurred, they are not used as justification to attempt the extermination an entire body of people, or to advocate the removal of a country from the map.
*Events like the Rwandan genocide or the Armenian genocide or the Cambodian killing fields might have annihilated a similar fraction of a given group, but there is no comparable serious effort by a widespread collection of people to pretend that they did not happen.
* The Holocaust is sort of an echo of similar historical events, like assorted pogroms, killing of Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the captivity of Jews during ancient times in Egypt, and the exiles of Jews to Babylon.
There is a lot of heat associated with this discussion, and not really enough light. Anyone weighing in risks getting smeared by one or both sides. I hope I will not suffer this fate.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Definition of character
In Skypeland, assorted mental midgets like to throw around legal threats of one kind or another. The incredible mystery man A is probably the champion of legal threats, making them over and over to all and sundry. The mystery man A's position is basically that it is against the law for anyone to disagree with his views promoting anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories (or at least it should be illegal to disagree with him, according to the mystery man A).
The "muck expert" Mucus and the incomprehensible Mrs. B, a sort of moronic Mutt and Jeff duo, claim that I have violated some law with my blog posts. Mucus and Mrs. B assert that I have have engaged in "definition of character". I would love to see the look on a British solicitor's face when Mucus and Mrs. B try to claim that my anonymous writings about anonymous unnamed unidentified composite characters on the internet, published with a disclaimer, violate some sort of legal principle, particularly the well known offense, "definition of character".
The "muck expert" Mucus and the incomprehensible Mrs. B, a sort of moronic Mutt and Jeff duo, claim that I have violated some law with my blog posts. Mucus and Mrs. B assert that I have have engaged in "definition of character". I would love to see the look on a British solicitor's face when Mucus and Mrs. B try to claim that my anonymous writings about anonymous unnamed unidentified composite characters on the internet, published with a disclaimer, violate some sort of legal principle, particularly the well known offense, "definition of character".
An African man
Once in a while in Skypeland, we get a look at other cultures and mindsets. J is an African American from Ohio who has advertised that he is a "house nigger" not a "field nigger" and for the most part, J presents a rational reasonable image. However, if you scratch beneath the surface a little bit, you find that J has very different cultural values and understanding than the American mainstream.
J came in to Skypeland stoned out of his mind, which he seems to do from time to time. J overheard some of the exchange with Hiney and U, and wondered why the discussion was so contentious. I told J the story, and J said that people needed to get past certain grudges and difficulties in the past. I asked him if he personally was past having hard feelings about slavery. J did not quite know how to respond to this.
J claims to be an "African", not an "African American". J states that there are no Americans, and even after 100 years or more, no one should be referred to as an American, but instead as a Korean, or a Japanese, or a Chinese, or a German or an African, or wherever their ancestors were from. When challenged to name the country he was from, J was unable to pronounce the names of any African countries.
Someone pointed out to J that there are white Africans. J had no response to this. I suspect he does not believe that there are any whites in Africa.
J claims that the African American names that blacks give their children are not made-up names, but are real African names. J said that blacks in the US name their children names from Africa, although J could not tell us what country these names came from.
A couple of African Americans compiled a list of some supposedly "real" African American girl's names. These are purported to be African American names, but I think J or anyone would be hard pressed to claim that these are real "African" names:
Latifah
Shaniqua
Latoya
Laquisha
La Kisha
La Tanya
Rohandra
Bon Quisha
Sha'' Tanya
Topramaneesha
La Quishtia
Bonifa
Levondia
Bufanaquishria
La Quishianiqua
Barbeersha
Mo'Nique
Abduiniana
Fo'Landra
Bon 'Qui Qui
Sha Nay Nay
Tay Tay
Da Quonde
La'Trice
Tramicia
De'Lanice
Ka'Likatifrianiqua
Sha'Londria
Elephantisha
La'Quaysha
Guuurrlll
Qua'Lifriaqui'Sha'Niquia
Cornbreesha
Congratulashayla
Barackisha
Obamaniqua
Koolaidria
Spongebobeeshia
Clitorisandrea
Fa'Nay Nay
Comptonia
Harlemisha
Beethovenice
Watermelondrea
Cellularphoniqua
Unidastazovamerikaliqua
Alejandrisha
KingKongQuisha
Fri'Chickenisha
Colla'Greeniqua
Grapedrankisha
Que'Shayda
La'Taniana Bo Vanashnaniqualiquan
Are these actual names of real people? If you have spent much time in the US, you have heard many similar names or even stranger names of real people. There are even African American websites with advice on baby names that caution African Americans about choosing such awful names that their children will have difficulty later in life (such as having trouble getting a job or being taken seriously).
J claimed that Affirmative Action is not racism, and that those with darker skin should be favored for scholarships and for school admission and to get employment. At first J claimed that there was no favoritism for those with darker skin, until school admission standards from the University of Michigan were read to him. Then J said it was only fair that those who came from bad neighborhoods with bad educations have the right to go to whatever university they want, no matter what and have whatever job they want, even if they cannot perform. J felt these were rights, not privileges.
J felt that favoring those of one skin color over another is not racism, and was quite adamant about it. And then I knew for sure that J had drank the purple koolaid.
Addendum
As an example of how each country has its own set of "political correctness" rules, UK emigrant D was discussing Oprah Winfree, and D said she could see no reason why Oprah was so venerated and respected. Somebody pointed out that one is really not allowed to criticize anyone who is African American, and D shot back that she didn't care what was politically correct; she would criticize whoever she liked. I am pretty sure that after D has spent a few years in the US, she will have a far deeper understanding of American political correctness, and will know instinctively that one cannot criticize someone like Oprah, just by definition.
I read some of the "African names" above to J. He said that they were made-up, which is my point of course. However, he said that those that I could not pronounce easily were obviously authentic African names. His proof of this was that I had trouble pronouncing them. Sounds like good reasoning, doesn't it?
J came in to Skypeland stoned out of his mind, which he seems to do from time to time. J overheard some of the exchange with Hiney and U, and wondered why the discussion was so contentious. I told J the story, and J said that people needed to get past certain grudges and difficulties in the past. I asked him if he personally was past having hard feelings about slavery. J did not quite know how to respond to this.
J claims to be an "African", not an "African American". J states that there are no Americans, and even after 100 years or more, no one should be referred to as an American, but instead as a Korean, or a Japanese, or a Chinese, or a German or an African, or wherever their ancestors were from. When challenged to name the country he was from, J was unable to pronounce the names of any African countries.
Someone pointed out to J that there are white Africans. J had no response to this. I suspect he does not believe that there are any whites in Africa.
J claims that the African American names that blacks give their children are not made-up names, but are real African names. J said that blacks in the US name their children names from Africa, although J could not tell us what country these names came from.
A couple of African Americans compiled a list of some supposedly "real" African American girl's names. These are purported to be African American names, but I think J or anyone would be hard pressed to claim that these are real "African" names:
Latifah
Shaniqua
Latoya
Laquisha
La Kisha
La Tanya
Rohandra
Bon Quisha
Sha'' Tanya
Topramaneesha
La Quishtia
Bonifa
Levondia
Bufanaquishria
La Quishianiqua
Barbeersha
Mo'Nique
Abduiniana
Fo'Landra
Bon 'Qui Qui
Sha Nay Nay
Tay Tay
Da Quonde
La'Trice
Tramicia
De'Lanice
Ka'Likatifrianiqua
Sha'Londria
Elephantisha
La'Quaysha
Guuurrlll
Qua'Lifriaqui'Sha'Niquia
Cornbreesha
Congratulashayla
Barackisha
Obamaniqua
Koolaidria
Spongebobeeshia
Clitorisandrea
Fa'Nay Nay
Comptonia
Harlemisha
Beethovenice
Watermelondrea
Cellularphoniqua
Unidastazovamerikaliqua
Alejandrisha
KingKongQuisha
Fri'Chickenisha
Colla'Greeniqua
Grapedrankisha
Que'Shayda
La'Taniana Bo Vanashnaniqualiquan
Are these actual names of real people? If you have spent much time in the US, you have heard many similar names or even stranger names of real people. There are even African American websites with advice on baby names that caution African Americans about choosing such awful names that their children will have difficulty later in life (such as having trouble getting a job or being taken seriously).
J claimed that Affirmative Action is not racism, and that those with darker skin should be favored for scholarships and for school admission and to get employment. At first J claimed that there was no favoritism for those with darker skin, until school admission standards from the University of Michigan were read to him. Then J said it was only fair that those who came from bad neighborhoods with bad educations have the right to go to whatever university they want, no matter what and have whatever job they want, even if they cannot perform. J felt these were rights, not privileges.
J felt that favoring those of one skin color over another is not racism, and was quite adamant about it. And then I knew for sure that J had drank the purple koolaid.
Addendum
As an example of how each country has its own set of "political correctness" rules, UK emigrant D was discussing Oprah Winfree, and D said she could see no reason why Oprah was so venerated and respected. Somebody pointed out that one is really not allowed to criticize anyone who is African American, and D shot back that she didn't care what was politically correct; she would criticize whoever she liked. I am pretty sure that after D has spent a few years in the US, she will have a far deeper understanding of American political correctness, and will know instinctively that one cannot criticize someone like Oprah, just by definition.
I read some of the "African names" above to J. He said that they were made-up, which is my point of course. However, he said that those that I could not pronounce easily were obviously authentic African names. His proof of this was that I had trouble pronouncing them. Sounds like good reasoning, doesn't it?
Hiney is a queer magnet
Grudges can last a long time in Skypeland. Today I was talking to a friend D in a Skypeland channel who is marrying BG, someone she met on Skype. They said it was very unfair that the owners and managers of a given Skype channel did not let them talk freely in the channel.
I pointed out that the owners of this Skype channel paid for the room, and D's fiance BG said the people who had paid for the room were "fucking stupid" for paying and that it was a waste of money. I said that it was their money, and they could do what they wanted with it. It was not up to anyone else. I notice that although some criticize the people who provide the room, they are anxious to take advantage of it. Hmm...
D and BG implied that the room should not have any arguments in it and there should be no discussion of politics. I said that it would be better if there was a selection of rooms for people to choose from, but so far there are very few.
I thought, no one is forcing anyone to come to the room if they dislike it so much. And they are free to start their own room if they prefer. I held my tongue however.
However, at that time, the infamous Hiney with his sidekick U, the retired American expatriate living in China entered the discussion. Hiney is an Indian immigrant who is probably living in Houston and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Hiney used to host "argument rooms" as Skypecasts for years. His method of "arguing" was to memorize a long soliloquy and then spew it out at high speed, laced with insults and threats and personal attacks. Hiney would occasionally allow half a second or a second for the other party to respond. No matter what the other party said, or did not say, Hiney would shut off his microphone and eject him from the room, laughing and mocking him. Hiney was aggressive about pressing his strident anti-American views, along with a good measure of conspiracy theories. Finally few would listen to Hiney any more, so he took to hacking other Skypecast rooms and ejecting the hosts, destroying one cast after another where people were having productive conversations. This went on for years. Hiney earned a fair amount of ill will from his behavior and attitude. Gee, I wonder why that would be?
Hiney's wingman U holds similarly outrageous points of view. While Hiney is around 20 years old, U is in his 60s. It is sort of curious to watch a 60 year old "kissing the posterior" of a 20 year old boy. U frantically brown-noses Hiney because of Hiney's alleged "intellectual superiority" which Hiney demonstrated by reciting a memorized script. U also lectures people for hours that the US is awful and that evil Jews secretly run the US and the World. U told me in great detail that there is no political repression in China and that China has more freedoms than the US. Ah yes, U is a real genius and so nice and rational
I had been quiet up to this point, as pleasantries flew back and forth. I listened while Hiney told D over and over what a loser her fiance BG is, and how she could do better. I had the strong impression that Hiney felt that D would be better off with him.
Hiney bragged that women think his picture is handsome. Hiney said women pursue him constantly. Someone asked if men pursue him as well, and Hiney said they did. Hiney said he is a "queer magnet" and many gay guys want to be with him.
After this statement, I could not stay quiet any longer. I let loose a stream of insults focused on Hiney and U, much to the annoyance of BG and of D who wanted a nice pleasant conversation. I was told over and over that I was childish and juvenile for attacking Hiney and U. I only like to give Hiney a little dose of his own medicine so he remembers that he is disliked and why he is disliked.
Some of us hold grudges. We don't appreciate being insulted, attacked, threatened and having our discussions hacked and destroyed repeatedly. And someone who spews nonsense and insults like U, as well assisting Hiney in creating disruption, deserves whatever he gets. This is particularly true in a Skypeland venue that advertises itself as a haven for rude behavior and insults, as well as being pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish and anti-conspiracy theory. It is not a "kumbaya room". Hiney and U have earned whatever negative reception they get. If they want to reform their ways, maybe eventually they would be treated differently.
Everyone demanded that I stop disrupting the room. So I played about 60 seconds of static in the room to give them a message that I was not going to put up with this kind of nonsense. In response, they accused me of being an infant having a tantrum. And then I muted my microphone and listened, while U played about 30 minutes or more of fart noises in the room.
Ah yes, I am childish and I have no reason for treating U and Hiney like that. Obviously.
Addendum
D invited me to her room in Skypeland. I said I would come and present my side of this contretemps. I attempted to explain why I had disrupted the discussion with Hiney and U. Immediately D's friend DH, the "chronic chronic" user, launched an attack.
I have studiously avoided DH for years, because he is ridiculous to talk to, and makes almost no sense, being usually stoned out of his mind. DH said that I had given Hiney free "adverizing" by talking about him and that showed what a jerk I am. DH also claimed that there is no such thing as computer hacking or malware, and anyone who has their software hacked has chosen to have it hacked. This should be news to most of the computer industry, but I am sure that DH knows what he is talking about.
Then DH came out with gems of wisdom like "If you think what you think, that is only because you think what you think". Hmmm now that is profound, but something I would definitely expect from DH. Maybe it would make more sense after a puff or two on a bong.
I was asked repeatedly to not continue with the topic, and I agreed if all attacks ceased. DH continued to attack, and I was muted. So I left.
I was accused of "not being able to take it" and I was told "some 1 stood up to u n u went runniong". Talking over someone, lecturing them, demanding that they not respond and then muting them is not a good way to get a dialogue, in my opinion. And it is not likely to create a positive impression.
People do not quite get it. If I am verbally bludgeoned, I reserve the right to defend myself. I also claim the right to disagree with statements I find objectionable. If I am not allowed to defend myself or disagree, then I will most likely leave. There is little purpose for me or anyone to be forced to listen to someone lecture about nonsense, except possibly for entertainment purposes or to capture their ridiculous statements for blog posts, etc.
I pointed out that the owners of this Skype channel paid for the room, and D's fiance BG said the people who had paid for the room were "fucking stupid" for paying and that it was a waste of money. I said that it was their money, and they could do what they wanted with it. It was not up to anyone else. I notice that although some criticize the people who provide the room, they are anxious to take advantage of it. Hmm...
D and BG implied that the room should not have any arguments in it and there should be no discussion of politics. I said that it would be better if there was a selection of rooms for people to choose from, but so far there are very few.
I thought, no one is forcing anyone to come to the room if they dislike it so much. And they are free to start their own room if they prefer. I held my tongue however.
However, at that time, the infamous Hiney with his sidekick U, the retired American expatriate living in China entered the discussion. Hiney is an Indian immigrant who is probably living in Houston and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Hiney used to host "argument rooms" as Skypecasts for years. His method of "arguing" was to memorize a long soliloquy and then spew it out at high speed, laced with insults and threats and personal attacks. Hiney would occasionally allow half a second or a second for the other party to respond. No matter what the other party said, or did not say, Hiney would shut off his microphone and eject him from the room, laughing and mocking him. Hiney was aggressive about pressing his strident anti-American views, along with a good measure of conspiracy theories. Finally few would listen to Hiney any more, so he took to hacking other Skypecast rooms and ejecting the hosts, destroying one cast after another where people were having productive conversations. This went on for years. Hiney earned a fair amount of ill will from his behavior and attitude. Gee, I wonder why that would be?
Hiney's wingman U holds similarly outrageous points of view. While Hiney is around 20 years old, U is in his 60s. It is sort of curious to watch a 60 year old "kissing the posterior" of a 20 year old boy. U frantically brown-noses Hiney because of Hiney's alleged "intellectual superiority" which Hiney demonstrated by reciting a memorized script. U also lectures people for hours that the US is awful and that evil Jews secretly run the US and the World. U told me in great detail that there is no political repression in China and that China has more freedoms than the US. Ah yes, U is a real genius and so nice and rational
I had been quiet up to this point, as pleasantries flew back and forth. I listened while Hiney told D over and over what a loser her fiance BG is, and how she could do better. I had the strong impression that Hiney felt that D would be better off with him.
Hiney bragged that women think his picture is handsome. Hiney said women pursue him constantly. Someone asked if men pursue him as well, and Hiney said they did. Hiney said he is a "queer magnet" and many gay guys want to be with him.
After this statement, I could not stay quiet any longer. I let loose a stream of insults focused on Hiney and U, much to the annoyance of BG and of D who wanted a nice pleasant conversation. I was told over and over that I was childish and juvenile for attacking Hiney and U. I only like to give Hiney a little dose of his own medicine so he remembers that he is disliked and why he is disliked.
Some of us hold grudges. We don't appreciate being insulted, attacked, threatened and having our discussions hacked and destroyed repeatedly. And someone who spews nonsense and insults like U, as well assisting Hiney in creating disruption, deserves whatever he gets. This is particularly true in a Skypeland venue that advertises itself as a haven for rude behavior and insults, as well as being pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish and anti-conspiracy theory. It is not a "kumbaya room". Hiney and U have earned whatever negative reception they get. If they want to reform their ways, maybe eventually they would be treated differently.
Everyone demanded that I stop disrupting the room. So I played about 60 seconds of static in the room to give them a message that I was not going to put up with this kind of nonsense. In response, they accused me of being an infant having a tantrum. And then I muted my microphone and listened, while U played about 30 minutes or more of fart noises in the room.
Ah yes, I am childish and I have no reason for treating U and Hiney like that. Obviously.
Addendum
D invited me to her room in Skypeland. I said I would come and present my side of this contretemps. I attempted to explain why I had disrupted the discussion with Hiney and U. Immediately D's friend DH, the "chronic chronic" user, launched an attack.
I have studiously avoided DH for years, because he is ridiculous to talk to, and makes almost no sense, being usually stoned out of his mind. DH said that I had given Hiney free "adverizing" by talking about him and that showed what a jerk I am. DH also claimed that there is no such thing as computer hacking or malware, and anyone who has their software hacked has chosen to have it hacked. This should be news to most of the computer industry, but I am sure that DH knows what he is talking about.
Then DH came out with gems of wisdom like "If you think what you think, that is only because you think what you think". Hmmm now that is profound, but something I would definitely expect from DH. Maybe it would make more sense after a puff or two on a bong.
I was asked repeatedly to not continue with the topic, and I agreed if all attacks ceased. DH continued to attack, and I was muted. So I left.
I was accused of "not being able to take it" and I was told "some 1 stood up to u n u went runniong". Talking over someone, lecturing them, demanding that they not respond and then muting them is not a good way to get a dialogue, in my opinion. And it is not likely to create a positive impression.
People do not quite get it. If I am verbally bludgeoned, I reserve the right to defend myself. I also claim the right to disagree with statements I find objectionable. If I am not allowed to defend myself or disagree, then I will most likely leave. There is little purpose for me or anyone to be forced to listen to someone lecture about nonsense, except possibly for entertainment purposes or to capture their ridiculous statements for blog posts, etc.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
What does unbalanced mean?
Two of the more impressive Brits who frequent Skypeland are the "muck expert" Mucus and his incomprehensible Yorkshire sidekick Mrs. B. The other Skypelanders always tell Mucus that he does not look like a 'proper Brit', since he father is a Greek Cypriot, but Mucus always protests this accusation vehemently. However, Mucus said today that "with a turban and a red dot on me head I could look like a Sikh". Ah yes, well we always suspected as much...
Mucus and Mrs. B were musing about the American military bases in the UK. Mucus was surprised that Americans on the base were "actually able to buy their own goods". He had thought that there were "a few bits and bobs on those bases" but he "didn't know how big they are". Mrs. B proudly told the room several times that Americans "fly their own kit in on airplanes" every day, in an effort to show how inferior and stupid the Americans are.
As they always seem to do, Mucus and Mrs. B got into a lot of confusion about percentages and numbers, in trying to compare the number of nonCaucasians in the UK and the US. Mrs. B estimated that "1% of the US is brown", but thought that the UK had more Muslims than the US (the UK has about 1.6 million Muslims, well short of the number of Muslims in the US, which is about 4-8 million, but no one could tell Mrs. B these numbers because he was in a frenzy of ignorance and proud to show off his stupidity). When the subject of "Nation of Islam" was brought up, Mrs. B did not want to hear it and just endlessly talked over anyone else in his blind ignorance.
When someone tried to bring up the percentages of African Americans (13%) and Hispanic Americans (17%), Mrs. B threw a fit since he does not understand percentages. A direct quote from Mrs. B on the subject of percentages is "if you have 65 million and you have 10 percent of 65 million, it is a different 10% than the ten percent of 350,000". Mrs. B made this statement smugly, as though he had discovered a cure for cancer, or a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or discovered the secret of eternal life, or had solved one of the Hilbert Problems. When someone tries to explain percentages to Mrs. B, he invariably talks over them, claims he is correct no matter what, calls them a "wall-eh" and ends with the statement, "An don' gi' ah fock". I guess now we know why Mrs. B is an unemployed pipe-fitter.
Mucus and Mrs. B were extremely pleased with themselves when they thought they had found a way to "trick" me. They asked me what the abbreviation "PhD" stood for. I said it was "doctor of philosophy" in English, but that the original phrase was likely Latin. Mucus and Mrs. B were beside themselves with excitement because I had been "trapped"; obviously "doctor of philosophy" should be abbreviated as "D.O.P.", or maybe even as "D.O.F.", and therefore Mucus and Mrs. B now had evidence that they are superior to me. They went on a rampage, insisting that I was an idiot since I did not know what the "H" stood for in the abbreviation "PhD". Ah yes, these two are real geniuses.
When the topic of food arose, Mucus and Mrs. B asserted that the UK has the best beef in the world, particularly "Angus beef". Several others in the discussion disagreed, and one brought up the topic of Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE). Mucus claimed that there was never any mad cow disease in the UK, and that the only mad cow disease is in the US. Oh really?
A quick look at the data shows that the UK found 179,000 cows with the disease during an eradication program and the US has only had one or two cases of BSE spread out over many years. It is estimated that over 400,000 BSE-infected cows were consumed in the UK and there have been about 164 deaths in the UK so far from the human form of the disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (compared to about 40 cases in the entire rest of the world, combined). [1]
Mucus and Mrs. B said that anyone who had eaten bad beef in the UK must have been in a greasy spoon. I disagreed, and said that I had a beef dinner when I dined at "high table" (essentially formal dining in a posh academic setting in the UK) in Britain. At the high table dinner, I was served some of the worst beef I had ever seen; it was essentially inedible. This sent Mucus and Mrs. B into gales of laughter, since they evidently did not know what "high table" dining is. They felt that "high table was a place for children to eat". Of course, it was impossible to explain anything to them, since they are sure they are correct, no matter what. They get dumber and dumber talking to each other.
Mucus and Mrs. B complain bitterly that a given Skypeland forum and its webpage is not impartial and unprejudiced, and therefore does not live up to its promise of being "unbalanced". They believe that "unbalanced" means that there should be an equal presentation of all sides of every issue. No matter how often people try to explain to Mucus and Mrs. B what the term "unbalanced" means, they never seem to be able to understand it. I guess that is what happens if you don't do your A levels...
Addendum
Mucus and Mrs. B were beside themelves with hubris, positive that I had "never heard of a cafe" and did not know what a "greasy spoon" is. They claimed that greasy spoons do not exist outside of the UK, and the expression "greasy spoon" does not exist outside of the UK.
They also were positive that the blog post above showed what an idiot I am since one does not taste food with one's eyes, but with the tongue. Mrs. B excitedly said, "duzzin make fokkin sense".
I tried to tell Mucus and Mrs. B to "click on the high table link" above to learn about the phrase "high table". However, I was unable to get them to check the link to learn what the phrase means. They were in very high spirits and were quite pleased with themselves for proving that I am an idiot, but they were unable to figure out how to read the link.
Mucus wanted to correct this blog post, and so he tried to clarify things by specifying that he was talking about the last US civil war only (I am not sure what other civil wars there were in the US). He then repeated his story, which was no different than what I wrote above, except the second time he did not mention how long the payments had continued. Well maybe he thought his previous claim sounded a bit sketchy, and he might have claimed too much. Oh well.
Mucus and Mrs. B were musing about the American military bases in the UK. Mucus was surprised that Americans on the base were "actually able to buy their own goods". He had thought that there were "a few bits and bobs on those bases" but he "didn't know how big they are". Mrs. B proudly told the room several times that Americans "fly their own kit in on airplanes" every day, in an effort to show how inferior and stupid the Americans are.
As they always seem to do, Mucus and Mrs. B got into a lot of confusion about percentages and numbers, in trying to compare the number of nonCaucasians in the UK and the US. Mrs. B estimated that "1% of the US is brown", but thought that the UK had more Muslims than the US (the UK has about 1.6 million Muslims, well short of the number of Muslims in the US, which is about 4-8 million, but no one could tell Mrs. B these numbers because he was in a frenzy of ignorance and proud to show off his stupidity). When the subject of "Nation of Islam" was brought up, Mrs. B did not want to hear it and just endlessly talked over anyone else in his blind ignorance.
When someone tried to bring up the percentages of African Americans (13%) and Hispanic Americans (17%), Mrs. B threw a fit since he does not understand percentages. A direct quote from Mrs. B on the subject of percentages is "if you have 65 million and you have 10 percent of 65 million, it is a different 10% than the ten percent of 350,000". Mrs. B made this statement smugly, as though he had discovered a cure for cancer, or a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or discovered the secret of eternal life, or had solved one of the Hilbert Problems. When someone tries to explain percentages to Mrs. B, he invariably talks over them, claims he is correct no matter what, calls them a "wall-eh" and ends with the statement, "An don' gi' ah fock". I guess now we know why Mrs. B is an unemployed pipe-fitter.
Mucus and Mrs. B were extremely pleased with themselves when they thought they had found a way to "trick" me. They asked me what the abbreviation "PhD" stood for. I said it was "doctor of philosophy" in English, but that the original phrase was likely Latin. Mucus and Mrs. B were beside themselves with excitement because I had been "trapped"; obviously "doctor of philosophy" should be abbreviated as "D.O.P.", or maybe even as "D.O.F.", and therefore Mucus and Mrs. B now had evidence that they are superior to me. They went on a rampage, insisting that I was an idiot since I did not know what the "H" stood for in the abbreviation "PhD". Ah yes, these two are real geniuses.
When the topic of food arose, Mucus and Mrs. B asserted that the UK has the best beef in the world, particularly "Angus beef". Several others in the discussion disagreed, and one brought up the topic of Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE). Mucus claimed that there was never any mad cow disease in the UK, and that the only mad cow disease is in the US. Oh really?
A quick look at the data shows that the UK found 179,000 cows with the disease during an eradication program and the US has only had one or two cases of BSE spread out over many years. It is estimated that over 400,000 BSE-infected cows were consumed in the UK and there have been about 164 deaths in the UK so far from the human form of the disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (compared to about 40 cases in the entire rest of the world, combined). [1]
Mucus and Mrs. B said that anyone who had eaten bad beef in the UK must have been in a greasy spoon. I disagreed, and said that I had a beef dinner when I dined at "high table" (essentially formal dining in a posh academic setting in the UK) in Britain. At the high table dinner, I was served some of the worst beef I had ever seen; it was essentially inedible. This sent Mucus and Mrs. B into gales of laughter, since they evidently did not know what "high table" dining is. They felt that "high table was a place for children to eat". Of course, it was impossible to explain anything to them, since they are sure they are correct, no matter what. They get dumber and dumber talking to each other.
Mucus and Mrs. B complain bitterly that a given Skypeland forum and its webpage is not impartial and unprejudiced, and therefore does not live up to its promise of being "unbalanced". They believe that "unbalanced" means that there should be an equal presentation of all sides of every issue. No matter how often people try to explain to Mucus and Mrs. B what the term "unbalanced" means, they never seem to be able to understand it. I guess that is what happens if you don't do your A levels...
Addendum
Mucus and Mrs. B were beside themelves with hubris, positive that I had "never heard of a cafe" and did not know what a "greasy spoon" is. They claimed that greasy spoons do not exist outside of the UK, and the expression "greasy spoon" does not exist outside of the UK.
They also were positive that the blog post above showed what an idiot I am since one does not taste food with one's eyes, but with the tongue. Mrs. B excitedly said, "duzzin make fokkin sense".
I tried to tell Mucus and Mrs. B to "click on the high table link" above to learn about the phrase "high table". However, I was unable to get them to check the link to learn what the phrase means. They were in very high spirits and were quite pleased with themselves for proving that I am an idiot, but they were unable to figure out how to read the link.
Mucus wanted to correct this blog post, and so he tried to clarify things by specifying that he was talking about the last US civil war only (I am not sure what other civil wars there were in the US). He then repeated his story, which was no different than what I wrote above, except the second time he did not mention how long the payments had continued. Well maybe he thought his previous claim sounded a bit sketchy, and he might have claimed too much. Oh well.
Imitation is the sincerest form
Some people have voices that are easy to imitate. Some people are more easily fooled by fake voices than others. And this can all play out to comic effect in Skypeland.
Some male from Skypeland pretends to be "Lisa from Finland" by speaking in a falsetto voice from time to time. The elderly C from Denmark becomes a bit amorous when he hears "Lisa's voice" and even tried to flirt with "Lisa".
The infamous "Swede fag" P does an imitation of former president George W. Bush in a falsetto voice with a Swedish accent. However, it is a decidedly awful imitation and no one would mistake it for the real thing. P is not that funny after you have heard him a few thousand times, but P seems to think that he is hilarious. P is now banned and blocked from most venues in Skypeland, but P has been known to try to entertain others in Skypeland by making multiple attempts to enter various rooms, even though he is blocked. Records show that P has made literally several thousand attempts a week to get into one Skypeland discussion group.
The two ladies C from Norway and K from Netherlands have very similar voices. It is almost impossible to tell them apart. However, one is decidedly "naughtier" than the other, so eventually you can figure out the identities from the content. They sometimes travel together in Skypeland, creating a lot of confusion.
Some people have more difficulty in identifying voices than others. Probably the most striking example of this is the bathroom contractor R who claims to be an international mercenary and multimillionaire businessman. R gets confused constantly with voices, even confusing some male voices for female voices. R finally learned my voice fairly well, but only after weeks of trying, mainly because of expressed desire to kill me and serve various parts of my body for dinner. R still has been confused when others identify themselves as me, however. I do not know if he just has no ability in this area normally, or if his self-medication has added to his difficulties.
The famous "internet spammer" WW also seems to have some problems with voices.
Mr. Wee Wee Hands, with his murmured whispering low-toned voice is easy for most people to imitate, particularly those with English accents. One of the moderators M played a trick on another moderator D this evening by pretending to be the pervert Mr. Wee Wee Hands, or LF. D is usually completely calm and imperturbable, but this was an amazing and hilarious exception:
M (pretending to be LF): D, We found out tonight that the Queen farts
D: Oh really?
M: and shits in a napkin
D: Where is that little prick?
M: D, what color underpants are you wearing?
D: LF, so help me, if I find you, you are gone.
M: D, are you going commando tonight?
D: Goddamn piece of shit, where is he?
M:Come now D, I will give you a nice reach around.
D: Holy fuck, let me get my hands on you, you perverted bastard!
I hate to admit it, but I was killing myself laughing. It was not very fun for poor D, but it was very entertaining for those listening.
Some male from Skypeland pretends to be "Lisa from Finland" by speaking in a falsetto voice from time to time. The elderly C from Denmark becomes a bit amorous when he hears "Lisa's voice" and even tried to flirt with "Lisa".
The infamous "Swede fag" P does an imitation of former president George W. Bush in a falsetto voice with a Swedish accent. However, it is a decidedly awful imitation and no one would mistake it for the real thing. P is not that funny after you have heard him a few thousand times, but P seems to think that he is hilarious. P is now banned and blocked from most venues in Skypeland, but P has been known to try to entertain others in Skypeland by making multiple attempts to enter various rooms, even though he is blocked. Records show that P has made literally several thousand attempts a week to get into one Skypeland discussion group.
The two ladies C from Norway and K from Netherlands have very similar voices. It is almost impossible to tell them apart. However, one is decidedly "naughtier" than the other, so eventually you can figure out the identities from the content. They sometimes travel together in Skypeland, creating a lot of confusion.
Some people have more difficulty in identifying voices than others. Probably the most striking example of this is the bathroom contractor R who claims to be an international mercenary and multimillionaire businessman. R gets confused constantly with voices, even confusing some male voices for female voices. R finally learned my voice fairly well, but only after weeks of trying, mainly because of expressed desire to kill me and serve various parts of my body for dinner. R still has been confused when others identify themselves as me, however. I do not know if he just has no ability in this area normally, or if his self-medication has added to his difficulties.
The famous "internet spammer" WW also seems to have some problems with voices.
Mr. Wee Wee Hands, with his murmured whispering low-toned voice is easy for most people to imitate, particularly those with English accents. One of the moderators M played a trick on another moderator D this evening by pretending to be the pervert Mr. Wee Wee Hands, or LF. D is usually completely calm and imperturbable, but this was an amazing and hilarious exception:
M (pretending to be LF): D, We found out tonight that the Queen farts
D: Oh really?
M: and shits in a napkin
D: Where is that little prick?
M: D, what color underpants are you wearing?
D: LF, so help me, if I find you, you are gone.
M: D, are you going commando tonight?
D: Goddamn piece of shit, where is he?
M:Come now D, I will give you a nice reach around.
D: Holy fuck, let me get my hands on you, you perverted bastard!
I hate to admit it, but I was killing myself laughing. It was not very fun for poor D, but it was very entertaining for those listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
