Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
Sorry. italics trouble. this should be better
I haven’t been protecting my name. You can find my last name by going to the site I was linking to when I signed my posts here last year. I stopped linking to that site because I haven’t updated that site since january. Now I don’t list my name because as a racist you are threatened by ethnic names. I would rather incite you with the plainly observable truth of your actions.
I’m amazed that you make so many assumptions about the people here based solely on their names. I know you aren’t the only minority here. Even within my own family there are Persians, Asians and Latinos. You need to get out and meet more people. Wait. No, scratch that. Nevermind.
Don’t worry. Nobody is threatened in the least by your name. Now if you want to keep it hidden so that all the other Mike L****s of the world don’t have to keep seeing their good names associated with “trollish jerk” when they google themselves, go right ahead.
What Jerry did was threaten to stalk:
Really? This should be good…
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was several weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Um….that’s it?
Michelle Malkin got into one of her flame wars by posting personal contact info from a political flyer she objected to, resulting in the recipients getting flooded with hate spam. In return her own personal contact info was distributed, resulting in reciprocal spam, which — with no sense of irony — she also objected to..
Gee, that’s fascinating. This matter why?
Jerry himself cited the posts where I link to my site. He even cited my pimp/høøkër beating analogy at the first opportunity to do so. Then he says, “A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.” All I’ve done is let him know stalking me will only shed a public spotlight on your sheltered racism.
Oh, it was his quoting YOU that made it a threat. Wow, seriously, read all that again, out loud. It’s the stupidest thing you’ve written since you told Craig “You’re so stupid you don’t even know what smart is.” (Which should be a poster or something. I don’t know if you were drunk when you wrote that but for your sake I HOPE you were drunk.)
So you’re backing off on the threat to sic CNN on us. Hot Ðámņ! We were worried!
Well, you’ve said you find beatings sexual. That explains why you insist on attacking me.
Actually I find that you often put weird violent and/or sexual references in your posts–the pimp beating a høøkër analogy being a bit of both. No doubt this quirk of yours will rear its head shortly.
…any of the following acts committed with , in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;
Yes, the definition I’m quoting says “killing members of another race etc. is genocide.” If finishing off the ethnic group are required to qualify for genocide, then the nazis were plainly not guilty of genocide, since we still have Jews.
And we see a perfect example of Mike-Logic. Follow this carefully. He pretends that “intent to destroy” must be the same as actually “finishing off”. He wants to pretend that we all believe that only a successful genocide is an actual genocide. Sorry Mike, we aren’t responsible for the deficiencies in your reading comprehension. If you can’t tell that “intent to destroy” does not require actual success in that endeavor why should we listen to any definition from you again?
The race privileges you people are trying to reserve for yourselves are really fûçkëd up.
That sort of thing might work on impressionable college kids who don’t know what a kook you are but simply yelling “racism” in a crowded forum inhabited by grownups is unlikely to win your arguments. But hey, you have to go with what you’ve got and it obviously ain’t logic.
Again, the public undressing by Bill Myers. No, I can’t stop you with your circle-jerk fantasies involving a group of men watching pørņ as women are kept out. Enjoy.
Annnnd there it is. A psychotherapist would have a great time with you, Mike. Might even get a book out of it!
Well, that was fun, as always. Mike–never leave. As long as Peter doesn’t get sick of all of us and toss us the hëll off his board, I’m ok with just leaving this as the “let Mike exorcise his personal demons” thread.
(Hey Mike, are you the same Mike L**** who once posted “I fûçkìņg hate this guy. I read his site, and he mentions the chronic Parkinsons-like pain he is suffering in his hands, and I can’t help thinking that he deserves it.” Sure hope not because that would really make you fuuuuuuuked uuuuuup)
Anyway, a happy Thanksgiving to all, even those lonely guys who have to make do with their imaginary friends and a can of Cambell’s Soup For One Cream of Turkey. (you know who you are).
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
Unh, hunh.
Translation: Unh, hunh.
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
Thanks for quoting my self-correction.
How does a self-correction qualify as a bìŧçhšláp?
Translation: There are high levels of lead in the tap water I drink. Is this harmful?
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
What the fûçk are you babbling about? If they have a closed registration, they are employing censorship. I cited wikipedia as to when they started posting-restrictions. And no one caught me, you quoted me correcting myself.
I pointed out they humiliate the year’s dead and they have a closed registration, and you make it sound like I said the first rule of Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club. Again, that’s very fûçkëd up of you, Bill Mulligan.
Translation: I am getting confused. What was I talking about, again?
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
I haven’t been protecting my name. You can find my last name by going to the site I was linking to when I signed my posts here last year. I stopped linking to that site because I haven’t updated that site since january. Now I don’t list my name because as a racist you are threatened by ethnic names. I would rather incite you with the plainly observable truth of your actions.
Translation: I can’t spell my own name.
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
What Jerry did was threaten to stalk:
Translation: I am frightened of kittens.
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
Well, you’ve said you find beatings sexual. That explains why you insist on attacking me.
Translation: The squirrels, the squirrels, the squirrels! You can’t fool me, I know they are conspiring against me!
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
You heard it here, folks: sending Saddam Hussein a letter of friendship after the state department memo citing his use of chemical weapons was a-ok. Makes you wonder what his pesky trial and death sentence are all about.
Translation: Ðámņ you, squirrels! Ðámņ you all to hëll, you conniving squirrels!
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
On what world does “the phrases match” deny the phrases match?
Translation: I know my ABCs. I am so very proud!
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
Yes, the definition I’m quoting says “killing members of another race etc. is genocide.” If finishing off the ethnic group are required to qualify for genocide, then the nazis were plainly not guilty of genocide, since we still have Jews.
Translation: Gøddámņ Hitler-loving neo-Nazi squirrels!!! You will not get me!!!!!!
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
So a slavery-related killing, then, is not genocide?
Translation: Oh, God, no. I think the Chipmunks are in on it, too!!!
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
The race privileges you people are trying to reserve for yourselves are really fûçkëd up.
Translation: The squirrels have gotten to Micha!!!!!!!!! I am running out of places to hide!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
Again, the public undressing by Bill Myers. No, I can’t stop you with your circle-jerk fantasies involving a group of men watching pørņ as women are kept out. Enjoy.
Translation: Some day, when I have defeated the squirrels and their allies, I will see the light of day again.
Oh, yea, I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving! Even you, Mikey!
“Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
What Jerry did was threaten to stalk:
Translation: I am frightened of kittens.”
Hey, I’ve moved up in the world. I’ve gone from being a mouse to being a cat.
🙂
Can I be a Husky next month? Pleeaaaasee…..
LOL. The squirrels!
The Other Animals Are Agin’ Us
By Tim Bedore 2003
Did you see that in the paper the other day about those carp in the Mississippi River jumping into boats and bonking fisherman in the head? It’s true. They’re called big head carp, they’re from Asia and they’re attacking and severely injuring many fisherman.
Biologists claim the roar of boat motors agitates and excites these carp and they jump towards the sound but I think these biologists are naively missing an obvious connection. Fish are attacking fisherman. For the fish it’s get them before they get you, kill or be killed. Even if these fisherman are practicing catch and release, that’s a very painful, embarrassing experience for any fish and apparently they have had it.
What about the increase in mountain lion attacks? Great White sharks moving closer to shore? Moose have been showing up in towns and stomping on people. A squirrel was in my living room last spring. Am I the only one that sees a pattern here? People, wise up! The other animals are against us. It doesn’t take a genius to see there’s an inter-species conspiracy to thwart the urban expansion of man.
How do the squirrels fit in? Surveillance. They spy on what we people are doing in the cities and report back to the bigger species out there on the front lines.
And taken together these other species represent walking, we hope not yet talking, scratching, biting weapons of mass destruction. And if these other species can convince the insect world, for example a well known anti-human group like the killer bees, to join up our way of life and our democracy could be history.
The skeptical may ask why would these other species want to hurt us? Obviously, they hate us. They are jealous of our way of life. We swim in chlorinated, safe environment pools, then towel off and have an adult beverage. They are stuck eating sludge in the Mississippi, a river polluted by guess who: their mortal enemy man. And to top it all off we eat them.
This invasion of Asian carp is no accident. This is stage one of their well planned attack. We ignore the obvious at our own peril.
We can no longer sit back and wait for them to attack us. It’s time we adopt a new doctrine regarding these other animals. We have to wipe out any and all species who are a lined against us, wherever they are. We can not rest until every big head carp, great white shark, mountain lion, moose and squirrel and any other species that associates with them are defeated.
If the U.N. wants to get involved fine, if not we can do it alone. Of course the British will show up, they always do, but we will fight to protect our way of life. And if you don’t agree, you’re an unpatriotic idiot who hates America.
1.)I think there should be a special soundproof room with an old fashioned microphone not connected to anything for people like Mike and Michelle Malkin. Bill O’Reilly can be an outpatient.
2.)Bills:Forgot superhero and zombie writing. Do comedy. You’ll make millions.
3.)Jerry, wanna be a husky next month? Eat a LOT tomorrow, dye your eyes blue, and let your hair get shaggy. Ta-da! Jerry the husky.
4.)Zombies, squirrels, and carp: Oh, my! Dorothy’s on acid! And now I have to worry about an old SNL skit showing up at my door to kill me.
Bill, it is wrong to misrepresent Mike’s arguments. He doesn’t think the squirrls are out to get us. It’s onlty the radical squirrls.
And now, some pre-Thanksgiving tunes, courtesy of the Fat Celt and his Galloping Guitar:
“A pretty short time ago,
On a blogsite not far away,
A troll once showed up to snipe at us.
We all thought he’d get tired and go away,
But to our chagrin he settled in
And talked about genocide all day.
But logic just bounces off him,
Your arguements won’t convince him,
He likes to define,
But all we hear is his incessant whine,
His posts are three days long,
His last name isn’t far from long,
Isn’t that his mother calling?
To keep any more of us from falling?
And we were singing:
Oh, Mike, Mike, you verbose little troll,
Maybe sanity will someday go home in your skull,
But for now keep yourself in your bolt hole,
The squirrels are coming, IS THAT A MOLE?
Every once in a while,
the thought might make you smile,
To think that Mike has changed.
But no matter how far these topic range,
He sticks to ONE POINT in a way that’s strange,
But maybe he’ll just let it die.
But that will also be the day the piggies fly!
And on and on. To the clumsily borrowed tune of American Pie.
I think the squirrels are out ot get my cats…or maybe they are trying to incite my cats to revolt or something? Ouroldest bit my wife’s foot a couple nights ago, clearly an attempt to interrupt my sleep so I’d be bleary and tired the next morning. But I showed them: I snoozed extra late, so their well-organized plan to trip me as I stumbled into the kitchen fell apart as they all had to take their early morning naps.
Mike…what can I say…Slavery is genocide? Clearly you’re missing the many historical instances of slavery where the captive people were allowed, even encouraged, to retain their culture. And genocidal slavery would be antithetical to the point of slavery, which is cheap labor. In that system, you want your slaves to live, procreate, continue, and be placid. If they caught on that your goal was to kill them all, they’d likely revolt much sooner than if they just thought you were a regular kind of evil enslaver. Not to mention that if you were successful in your genocidal plans, you’d have eliminated your cheap labor force, and then you’d sure be screwed.
Y’know, Mike…I tried. I tried to follow you, see if you had some good points to make, and weren’t just a raging troll looking to start trouble. But I can’t give you the benefit of the doubt any more. The one argument you’ve stuck to that had any chance of holding a rational thought just isn’t there. Trying to claim that a group of well-spoken adults are racist because they disagree with your singular view on what genocide means is just…dumb.
Ðámņ. That was pretty good.
I have a friend who is absolutely brilliant at that sort of thing only he does it about topics that 3 people in the world will get–he did a version of “17” by Janis Ian called “Insect Queen” that was killer and probably funny to about 27 people in the English speaking world. It’s still a kind of genius though.
“The definition that Mike often quotes does not say that killing members of another race etc. is genocide. What it says is that killing members of another race etc. is one of several methods used to accomplish genocide, i.e. the destruction of a racial or cultural or religious groups. “
Mike’s definition reeks of ignorance. When a black man kills another black man, is he committing an act of genocide? Or is he killing an a-hole that pìššëd him off? Not all murders/assaults/rapes/etc are racially/ehtnically/religiously motivated.
Confusing them by calling them acts of genocide is total intellectual fraud.
A car can be used to kill someone, even someone off a speciifc race, does that make all cars instruments of genocide?
Happy Thanksgiving guys and gals. Enjoy the time off and the family time.
“…dye your eyes blue…”
They are blue. I just need to dye one brown for the perfect effect. Why do the transformation job halfway?
Bladestar wrote:
“Mike’s definition reeks of ignorance. When a black man kills another black man, is he committing an act of genocide? Or is he killing an a-hole that pìššëd him off? Not all murders/assaults/rapes/etc are racially/ehtnically/religiously motivated.
Confusing them by calling them acts of genocide is total intellectual fraud.
A car can be used to kill someone, even someone off a speciifc race, does that make all cars instruments of genocide?”
Bladestar, I’m very angry with you, because you are causing me to write a sentence I never thought I’ll write: Mike’s argument is not that stupid.
He never said that any kiling of a member of certain race is genocide. What he did was say that any hate crime — the kiling of an individual for racist reasons — is genocide. Stupid, yes. But not as stupid as you attributed to him.
Fine, now I’m going to wash my mouth with soap.
“Clearly you’re missing the many historical instances of slavery where the captive people were allowed, even encouraged, to retain their culture.”
I’m not sure about that.
It is true that slavers didn’t want to physically eliminate their victims. It is also true that slaver societies didn’t want necessarily to eliminate the cultures from which their slaves weere taken. But slavery, to the best of my knowledge, is usually detrimental to the cultural identity of the captives. Ironically, since the slaves are at the same time segregated, they are able to develop a new cultural identity.
Happy Thanksgiving all! Or, as they call it in Europe (In the immortal words of Greg Proops), “Fûçk Off, Puritan!” Day.
-Rex Hondo-
There’s also the matter of how one defines slaves. The Persian empire under Xerxes allowed most of the subjugated city-states to retain almost all of their cultural identities. They could even wage war against other members of the empire, under the watchful eye of the Great King. Buit they were regarded,a s were all his subjects, as no better than slaves. He could have them killed at whim, they were expected to give him as much tribute as he demanded, they could be impressed into his armies at any time for whatever reason.
A freer form of slavery than that of teh Old South to be sure, but slavery nonetheless.
Bill, I don’t think it is right to strech the meaning of the term slavery to that extent, especially when dealing with an ancient culture. Tyranny is a bad thing, but slavery is a very specific institution, that does not involve only being subject to a tyrant, or paying tribute (very comon practice), but removal from your place of origin and culture, and being treated like an object by your masters.
Ciscero called slaves instruments that talk. (Which is what I call politicians).
Great, more definitions to argue over.
Bill, under Xerxes, were there different classes? Or was it all, “I’m King, you’re not?” I thought I had read or heard somewhere about some gradation of society, but I’m not sure, so I apologize if I’m off base.
Micha, Mike’s long-clung to proposition is that:
“ANY racially motivated murder” equals
“Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]”
So, yes, Mike has, in fact, said that any killing of a racial group is genocide.
Thanks Bobb, that’s how I was interpretting Mike’s posts
Sweet irony. I’m almost tempted not to say anything. Mike is getting a taste of his own medicine. His words, taken out of context are used against him.
Mike’s false argument is:
ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the defninition of genocide.
in logical terms
Hate crime = ANY racially motivated murder
ANY racially motivated murder = Killing members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
Killing members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group = genocide
——————
Hate crime = Genocide
This argument is obviously false because “Killing members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” does not equal genocide, except when it is part of a genocidal attempt.
However, if Bob and Bladestar read Mike’s words the way he reads texts, simply out of context, then, for Mike’s argument to be correct, we have to accept that:
Killing members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group = genocide
which means that any kiling of any member of any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, is genocide. Even the accidental kiling of one black person by another, or for that matter the kiling of any person under any circumstances, since everyone belongs to a national or ethnic group.
This is obviously not his argument. But Bob, Bladestar, feel free to repeat it as many times as you want. It is only fair.
Micha, I had to read that four times before I understood what you were saying. Tell me, do you think Mike likes hot fudge on his just desserts?
Posted by: Micha at November 22, 2006 05:56 PM
which means that any kiling of any member of any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, is genocide. Even the accidental kiling of one black person by another, or for that matter the kiling of any person under any circumstances, since everyone belongs to a national or ethnic group.
Well, if Mikey denies it, we’ll have to conclude that the only virtue in doing so is to shelter racism.
Either that, or he’s been drinking more turpentine.
“Micha, I had to read that four times before I understood what you were saying.”
Sorry about that. I sometimes find it difficult to make my point.
It is harder when the point is not very intuitive. I always had a hard time writing philosophy papers.
“”Tell me, do you think Mike likes hot fudge on his just desserts?”
Don’t hold your breath. Mike does not seem like the kind of person who appreciates irony. He’ll probably continue twisting things out of context. I can’t wait to see what he’l do to bladestar’s argument.
It sounds like you are telling me you require me to paste the citation including the qualifier:
Tell me you prefer that over “‘Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]’ in the definition of genocide” and I will use that instead. For me, it’s just a matter of pasting the larger text, and it isn’t like Bill Mulligan is reading my posts anyway.
But you seemed to take my meaning as I intended it:
Either way, I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. “ANY racially motivated murder” is Bill Mulligan’s choice of words, and “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is from the Lemkin definition of genocide.
Care to cite an example?
So he is a victim of genocide. Just not in “the way the holocaust victims were.” You just admitted a victim of a racially motivated murder is a victim of genocide — why didn’t you just do this in the first place?
You said:
You make the destruction of the ethnic group a requirement in genocide: “..to accomplish genocide, i.e. the destruction of a racial or cultural or religious groups.” The stupid argument is one of your making.
And I believe that. But the holocaust is not a reason to deny “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
And yet you still admitted “Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match.” Thanks for continuing to raise my observation further and further above question.
You said “you pretty much got bìŧçhšláppëd by a bunch of rightwingers” and then you cited a self-correction I made. Not only are you not reading my posts, but you aren’t even reading your own.
You just wanted to use the word “bìŧçhšláp” even though it doesn’t apply. You used the word gratuitously, probably because beating on women excites you, as you put it, in a “sexual weird” way.
What lie? Try reading my january self-correction for once:
The Lennie Green Footballers had accepted this themselves and even linked to this: http://www.google.ca/ search? hl=en &ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8 &q=Bush%27s+ Faustian+ Deal+With+ the+Taliban &meta=
I didn’t have to admit to šhìŧ, but I did it because it was the right thing to do. Your derision “you were right or you were wrong and ‘corrected’ it. No it’s ok–don’t hurt yourself with another contortion” tells me dominance is more important to you than doing the right thing. Surprise, surprise.
Yeah, if you treat them as normal, you are fûçkëd up. Here’s how you introduced Lennie Green Footballs into this thread:
Then I replied:
When John Byrne was being derided here, were you secretly enjoying Byrne mocking Steve Irwin’s death or what? This is the practice you defend.
I’m not making an assumption you are racist because of your name, Bill Mulligan. I’m saying you are a racist because the only virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide is to shelter racism.
What “quoting me?” Jerry has to be pressured into quoting me.
All along he cites posts I made last year, and then out of the blue he says “A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.” Again, all I’ve done is let him know stalking me will only shed a public spotlight on your sheltered racism.
I used the analogy “like a høøkër who knifes a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her” to describe the downtrodded who work against their own interest.
You misapplied the word “bìŧçhšláp” when I made a public self-correction.
It seems you can’t help associating violent references with your sexual gratification.
Except the circle-jerk fantasy involving a group excluding women and watching pørņ is what got Bill Myers hot and bothered:
At least if he found women arousing, maybe he could have included them shrouded — observation being a definite sexual-downer for him.
Yes, I said that, and then I finished by citing Elie Weisel: hate destroys the hater.
I was making the distinction between being angry and sheltering anger — kind of like the fûçkëd up way you persist in sheltering racism by denying the plain wording of the definition of genocide.
” However, if Bob and Bladestar read Mike’s words the way he reads texts, simply out of context…
Care to cite an example?”
Yes:
“if a neo-nazi kills a Jew today, that Jew is not the victim of genocide the way the holocaust victims were.
So he is a victim of genocide. Just not in “the way the holocaust victims were.” You just admitted a victim of a racially motivated murder is a victim of genocide — why didn’t you just do this in the first place?
Yes, the definition I’m quoting says “killing members of another race etc. is genocide.” If finishing off the ethnic group are required to qualify for genocide, then the nazis were plainly not guilty of genocide, since we still have Jews.
This is both a strawman and a stupid argument.
You said:
The definition that Mike often quotes does not say that killing members of another race etc. is genocide. What it says is that killing members of another race etc. is one of several methods used to accomplish genocide, i.e. the destruction of a racial or cultural or religious groups.
You make the destruction of the ethnic group a requirement in genocide: “..to accomplish genocide, i.e. the destruction of a racial or cultural or religious groups.” The stupid argument is one of your making.”
It’s lucky that you are entertaining, Mike, because you’re not very clever. Every word you write is proof of your lack of reading comprehension.
“And I believe that. But the holocaust is not a reason to deny “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
Yes it is. Because what makes the holocaust and other genocides the significant, terrible historical events that they are is that they were not simply any killing of a member of a racial group. The reason you cannot understand that is because you are so wrapped up in your out of context, distorted, misunderstood quotes that you are ignoring the actual historical events, the horrible experiences of people who were systematically dehumanized and slaughtered by the machinary of the state.
I’m certain that when your read this post your twisted little mind will make read it as if I said that other racially motivated murders do not matter, or something like that. In fact, you are so sick, you’ll probably quote the words I just wrote (I’m getting a headache just thinking about it). It is a shame that somebody like you, so ignorant and lacking even the minimal reading comprehension, decided to latch onto genocide of all things. It is obscene.
Bill, under Xerxes, were there different classes? Or was it all, “I’m King, you’re not?” I thought I had read or heard somewhere about some gradation of society, but I’m not sure, so I apologize if I’m off base.
A good story about Xerxes illustrates the point. Right before his ill-fated expedition to greece a wealthy subject offered his fortune to the King to help finance the war. Xerxes declined the offer and actually gave him even more money as a sign of his approval. A few months later the same man asked the king for a favor. His 5 sons were all in the Persian army and he requested that his eldest be released so that he could take care of his father in his old age. Xerxes, angered by the request of a man who he regarded as a slave (and the implied lack of confidence in the war’s outcome) released the 4 youngest sons but the eldest and most favored son he had cut in half and his body displayed as a reminded of the fate of all who eraned the King’s disfavor.
Small wonder the Greeks fought so hard to avoid subjugation.
Mike, ya horrid little lawn gnome, those of us with families that speak to us are busy today. Jesus! Go to a Shoneys or Golden Corral and help yourself to a slice of turkey. Turkey.
For me, it’s just a matter of pasting the larger text, and it isn’t like Bill Mulligan is reading my posts anyway.
Don’t read them? I read them out loud, to the general merriment of all who hear them.
You just wanted to use the word “bìŧçhšláp” even though it doesn’t apply. You used the word gratuitously, probably because beating on women excites you, as you put it, in a “sexual weird” way.
This from the guy who loves to bring up høøkërš being hit by pimps. I meantioned no women, Mike. The bìŧçh is you.
AFTER they had caught you in a lie. And which is it–you were right or you were wrong and “corrected” it. No it’s ok–don’t hurt yourself with another contortion.
What lie? Try reading my january self-correction for once:
Have just learned via google that the may 2001 Taliban funding story was discredited just this november.
Sorry Mike, the lie was when you calimed that the site was about to censor you and then you had to admit–because they caught you, ya lying lier–that you had somehow confused them with some other fuuuuucked uuuup website you frequent. But now you try to simultaneously claim that A- you were right all along and B- you admitted your mistake…which would mean that A is incorrect. Do YOU read your own posts? Do you laugh at them the way we do?
When John Byrne was being derided here, were you secretly enjoying Byrne mocking Steve Irwin’s death or what? This is the practice you defend.
Ok so you are even going to TRY to defend yourself againt the charge of hypocrisy when you accuse people of being fuuuucked uuup for reading your own posts on a websit. Ok. Gotcha.
I’m not making an assumption you are racist because of your name, Bill Mulligan.
Sure Mike, sure. I forgot, you have the ability to know the race of people based on their names–PLUS their state of mind! (“A bunch of defensive white guys”) That’s some power. You should be in the Avengers. If the Klan isn’t taking new members.
All along he cites posts I made last year, and then out of the blue he says “A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.” Again, all I’ve done is let him know stalking me will only shed a public spotlight on your sheltered racism.
Sorry Mike, that’s not even close to stalking. But considering some of the things you’ve said in the past I’m not surprised you are scared to have folks dig them up. You are a very sad weird little man and there are a lot of people who remember you, Mike. And if what I hear from some of your old adversaries from the online journals is true, you are hardly one to throw the word “stalking” around.
Yes, I said that, and then I finished by citing Elie Weisel: hate destroys the hater.
Oh, well then, THAT makes it ok…wow, are you screwed up.
Ironically, the object of your hatred has now gone on to become a published author…while you, 5 years later are Still. A. Troll. Tsk tsk, so sad.
Now is the time when the rest of us go enjoy family and friends. You, Mike, can go stew in your hatred. You are a troll. You may even be a good troll, as such things go, if the purpose is to get attention. But just because you are good at what you do it doesn’t mean that it’s worth doing.
But if you wish to hang around here and play the part of the sad little buffoon that makes the rest of us feel good about ourselves, feel free.
Micha,
“It’s lucky that you are entertaining, Mike, because you’re not very clever.”
He’s entertaining?
Micha, you have a really odd sense of entertainment.
A thought just occurred. You think Mike gets paid for every time he pastes that one phrase? Only reason I can think of for him to do it.
A thought just occurred. You think Mike gets paid for every time he pastes that one phrase? Only reason I can think of for him to do it.
Mike, only a year and a half ago:
But if you’re going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there’s no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun. However, if you just throw out a big hunk of text and people don’t understand you — you may as well have kept your point to yourself.
If the point you make needs a crap-load of qualification to explain its importance, you’re probably better off letting whatever inconsistencies you find alone.
Too funny. As is:
Mike- When Jeffrey takes every opportunity to dissect a post to attack it in a reply, he’s using a very basic high school debating tactic. Y’all may want to consider that Jeffrey is a well-read 14-year-old kid, who is no less flabbergasting than a lot of 14-year-old kids.
or:
Mike- Yes, keep posting here — after trying to pressure people who disagree with you to abandon their casualness — without addressing your own need, your dependence, on inconsistency.
and lastly:
Strategically, it helps to remember the advantage in being a strict-personality troll is in forcing people to abandon casual behavior. That is the power in waiting for Peter to say something vile, and coming back with a single devastating summation. Reiterate your devastating point where he gives you the opportunity, but if you are seen as repeating yourself, you will dilute your own effectiveness as a troll.
Too, too funny
“Micha, you have a really odd sense of entertainment.”
I find the humor in eveyday life. Mike is the verbal equivalent of somebody stepping on a rake and hitting his head with the handle. He is a verbal klutz, a logical cozmo Kramer.
Furthermore, his stupidity doesn’t really matter, which makes it harmless, unlike other kinds of stupidity.
But I have to admit that the entertainment value is almost over with Mike. His routine has become routine. I can guess his next joke before he even writes it, which I personaly find frightening.
I have a feeling this thread is soon coming to an end. But I think, in order to prevent the dreaded Genocide argument coming up on other threads, we should either ignore it, or answer him in this thread, thus making it a quarantined Mike’s idiotic genocide obsession thread.
Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to you. enjoy your holiday.
Bill, I’m not sure I understand the objective of being a troll.
To get the attention momma did not provide in childhood, is my best guess.
*Basic introduction: Troll 101*
Subjects: Trolls in general and our troll specifically.
“Bill, I’m not sure I understand the objective of being a troll.”
That’s easy. People act like a troll because they have nothing worthwhile to offer and they get off on what they think is power. In most trolls’ cases, they mistake their own stupidity for strength and the reactions that some have to their stupidity as a sign of their power or superiority over others. They then get a strange satisfaction over this perceived power of theirs.
They’re kind of like the kid in junior high school who breaks the water fountain or the toilet just because he can and thinks it’s funny and cool to see others disappointed that it no longer works. They’re like the delinquent who gets together with his friends to drive through the neighborhood at three in the morning and shoots at peoples’ windows with a pellet gun. They’re being “cool” and displaying their “strength” and “power” to the world. They’ve just never worked out that all they’re actually showing the world is the size and scope of their own impotence.
Some trolls are just plain stupid and don’t know it. They dive into a conversation armed with tons of facts (and quite a few “facts”) with little or no skill to actually understand or apply those facts. They then get upset that others are knocking the legs out from under them and their great mountain of “facts” and start throwing a hissy fit and reverting to being a three year old. They’re just stupid enough to believe that acting like a tantrum throwing, insult spewing three year old or clamping their hands over their ears and yelling the same thing over and over and over again will win people over rather then get them stares of pity and disgust.
They’re also cowards and, deep done inside, they know it. They’re tiny little people who have no real courage or nerve what-so-ever. They can go to blogs and the like and post away anonymously (or try to) and never have to actually interact with a real person face to face. This is important for them because they would never have the nerve to say the kind of garbage that they post on-line to someone’s face. Even the mere thought of doing that in the real world would cause their knees to get too weak and their stomach too upset to even approach someone that they would spend all day flaming on the net.
There are many more aspects of being a troll. None of them are things that well adjusted adults aspire to however.
Mike, as our troll of the month specifically, is one of those trolls that falls into three sub-categories of troll 101.
He believes that he is somehow shocking and edgy in his genius and derives pleasure from getting reactions to his antics. Thing is, he doesn’t realize that he has the intellectual nature of a third grader.
From Mike’s own description about himself…
“…I got tired of confusion over the title driving readers away. I may as well drive them away with sacrilege.”
Mike thinks he’s shocking and controversial. He’s actually nothing more then the immature brat at the lunchroom table who thinks he’s funny when he grosses other kids out by spitting a mouthful of chewed burger back onto his tray. He thinks that this kind of thing still makes him the height of cool and places him amongst the elite of internet bad boyishness. He just doesn’t realize that the reactions that he eventually elicits are those of pity or indifference. He hasn’t figured out that the rest of us kept growing after the third grade and just aren’t impressed, shocked or interested in going back to the third grade lunchroom with him.
He’s also the type that thinks he is the towering mount of wisdom that will shed light unto the world. He knows what’s wrong with all of us and will shake the very foundations of our world by any means necessary until we stop deluding ourselves and realize the gospel according to Mike.
Again, his own description of himself…
“Mike L***g, he knows this world is killing you / Mike L***g, his aim is true”
At least this facet of his personality is slightly older, if no more mature, then his other facet. Here he’s like the dumb schmuck kid who just turned sixteen and has decided that he knows everything. He’s sixteen going on fifty. He knows better then everybody else and he will berate them and insult them and try and disturb and shock them with his “truths” until they come around to his side of the argument.
He is, just like the dumb schmuck sixteen year old, ignorant however of the fact that his “answers” are stupid and that he actually has very little of substance to say or to add to a conversation or debate. When others treat his opinions like that, he then taps into his inner third grader and goes for the shock value/power game. In typical troll fashion, he tries to win his argument by becoming more of a child rather then more of an adult and then wonders why he gets flamed. And, just like many dumb schmuck sixteen year old going on fifty, he then decides that it couldn’t be HIS fault that others are not listening to him and believing in his great wisdom of the world. No, they just don’t want to hear the truth because they’re foolish, ignorant or some other such nonsense. In the case of our Mike, to disagree with him in any way makes you a bad person.
Mike is also a coward. I don’t know him personally and I never want to. But I can guess that he falls into that category with some certainty. Why? Look at how bad a nerve I touched with him just by stating that he has posted quite a bit elsewhere and that I think I know who he is. He had a panic attack and started spouting of nonsense about my (in every world save for the imaginary Planet M, very nonexistent) desire to stalk him.
Not that he’d have anything to worry about. His fear overloaded his brain to the point that he just won’t grasp the fact that most of us don’t care enough about him to want to meet him for ANY reason. I and others here have too much of a real life to want to waste any time trying to have any real world contact with our little Mad Mikey Troll. Why would we?
But this thought of people knowing who he was scared the crap out of him. Was this a fear of physical harm on his part? Most likely, no. And, again, that’s not something he would have to worry about anyhow. No, his greatest fear in his little troll life, even more then being physically harmed, would probably be having to look someone in the eye and having an adult conversation or debate with them without being able to flame them or insult them anonymously from behind the safe confines of his keyboard. He’s so afraid of that notion that he just can’t grasp, again, that nobody here, or likely anywhere else, would waste the time, money or gas to have a face to face with someone as pathetic as he is for any reasons at all. Hëll, people wouldn’t care to try and meet him if they were to find out that he was their next door neighbor. Walking the sixty feet from front door to front door and knocking is too much effort for such a little payoff.
Why? Because, in the end, Mike is just a cowardly little troll. He may be a little more demented the the average troll and he’s definitely more paranoid, but he’s just a troll none the less. He’s not a Rex, Luigi, Micha, Bill, Sean, Sasha or others from here. One day he’ll go away and start bothering other people and no one will think twice about where he went, when was they last time they saw a post by him or even care enough to notice that he’s left.
“Mike L***g, he knows this world is killing you / Mike L***g, his aim is true”
Well, at least he’s listened to some good Elvis Costello.
Well, then why didn’t you just say “if a neo-nazi kills a Jew today, that Jew is not the victim of genocide?” What is the virtue in you adding “the way the holocaust victims were” — if he isn’t a victim of genocide at all?
As I’ve already replied: You make the destruction of the ethnic group a requirement in genocide: “..to accomplish genocide, i.e. the destruction of a racial or cultural or religious groups.” The stupid argument is one of your making.
Consider this as you review the part of your quote I’ve bolded above: There are no international laws, or US laws, to enforce the interpretation of history. If there were, holocaust deniers would be subject to international or US prosecution. So would flat-earthers who deny the Apollo moon landings.
I tell people computers are like genies: they don’t grant your wishes based on what you want — they grant your wishes based on what you ask for. Then you debug your fûçkìņg program, revising your wish until you get what you want.
The law is the same fûçkìņg way. You can’t tell the genie he got your wish wrong — to make you the most powerful man in the world — because the genie made you Hitler as the allies are bombing his bunker.
There are no laws to enforce the spirit of any laws.
So you tell me: legally, how many killings qualify as genocide? 3% of an ethnic group? 1%? Do all the aboriginal tribes in the Amazon count as a single ethnicity? Do the 99 Amazonian pygmies who believe Muhammed’s son-in-law counted as the first caliph count as separate Amazonian pygmies than the 101 who believe Muhammed’s son-in-law counted as the fourth caliph, as they are with Muslims? If a member of each tribe is murdered in tribal warefare, has one tribe suffered from genocide, but the other is just plain šhìŧ-out-of-luck?
And why would Raphael Lemkin care about the bûllšhìŧ privileges of defensive white guys enough to simply not mean the definition of genocide as he wrote it?
I’m not using the høøkër-beating as an analogy for righteous disciplining in the way you applied “bìŧçhšláp” in my self-correction.
Your reference to the righteous disciplining of a degraded woman was gratuitous. You’ve simply demonstrated your appetite for disciplining and degrading women.
I addressed this in one of the many posts of mine you aren’t reading:
…
To simply make and untrue statement in itself does not qualify as lying. Why wouldn’t the issue of censorship not be consideration when they plainly reserve it as a right in their disclaimer?
While I’m breaking posts up to bypass the word limits of the Peter’s movable type, let me fix the typos in the previous sentence:
To simply make an untrue statement in itself does not qualify as lying. Why wouldn’t the issue of censorship be consideration when Lennie Green Footballs plainly reserve it as a privilege in their disclaimer?
I dodged your charge of hypocrisy by qualifying why your readership of Lennie Green Footballs was fûçkëd up and mine was not. You refuse to denounce the site, sheltering their ridicule of the year’s dead, just as John Byrne ridiculed Steve Irwin’s death. I am not holding you to a standard I don’t live by myself. Ergo, no hypocrisy.
The Klan will not take me because I know hate crime laws are justifiable in the same manner cop-killer laws are justified, and say so unambiguously. Yet you keep trying to deride me by telling me what I say is compatible with them.
However, sheltering racism is right up the Klan’s alley. If anything you’ve said would exclude you from their membership, you’re going to have to remind me. Seriously, macaca, what have you said that would lead a Klan member to exclude you from membership?
Sounds like stalking to me:
Which word throws you off, “pursue” or “quarry?”
When you leave in the obvious substance of my reply — that I was making the distinction between being angry and sheltering anger — no, my reply wasn’t screwed up at all.
The object of my hatred made a habit of discussing cripples and midgets — not in the funny “South Park” way — but in the manner along the lines of “these people disgust me and I wish they had the decency to stay out of public view.”
Then his daughter developed an obvious speech/learning disability, which he discusses publicly. Of his publishing success, I will only say it came from severe sacrifices on his part above and beyond anything that has to do with getting published.
You’ve already cited posts from me discussing the tactics of trolling. I said you’ve given me a lot of freedom by abandoning any moral ground, and that is still the case. The only virtue of denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide this denial is to shelter racism.
Because this might be the first time Bill Mulligan actually reads this, I’m going to fix it:
The only virtue of denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide is to shelter racism.
All right. I’m going to play by Mike’s rules with Mike’s toys. This is from Wiki, the first few passages on genocide.
“The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) — also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն) or the Armenian Massacre — refers to the forced mass evacuation and related deaths of hundreds of thousands to over a million Armenians, during the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 in the Ottoman Empire. Some main aspects of the event are a matter of ongoing dispute among the academic community and between parts of the international community and Republic of Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events comprising the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government and several international historians reject the label genocide, and claim that the deaths among the Armenians were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I.
Despite this disagreement, most Armenian, Russian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars term the massacres a genocide. For example, some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the group. The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide,[1] and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. To date 21 countries, as discussed below, have officially described it as genocide.”
See? Other people can play in paste, too. And as you can see, it points to another phrase, “the sheer scale of the death toll” as a freaking QUALIFIER for the term. Now, I don’t think Mikey’s one of these scholars, and I sure as hëll know I’m not, and if THEY can’t convice each other, with what I’m sure is quite reasonable rhetoric, Mike’s not going to do it with the response that would get the average five-year old swatted on the tail and sent to bed without Spongebob.
And I really wish I had remembered to put the line comparing him to X-Ray in that song, but that’s why I do stories instead of songs.
So, is anyone else starting to think Mikey might be one of those simple AI programs you can find on the net? You know, the kind where you have psuedo ‘conversations’ with, and they respond with a series of canned responses?
“So, is anyone else starting to think Mikey might be one of those simple AI programs you can find on the net?”
Don’t we wish. One anti-dementia patch gets uploaded and the problem is solved. This nutter is real and we’re stuck with him until they increase his meds or take away his computer use privileges.
:{
Micha-“Today Mike is going to jump from an argument about hate crime, over a stack of dictionaries, three aligators, modern history of genocides, a joke from Monty Python, a tiger, an ironic statement by Sean, a bunch of random letters resulting from Bill Mulligan knocking his head against his keyboard, 100 zombies, 4 prostitutes, a reference by Alfred I’m not famiiliar with, and many other things, to reach the conclusion that we’re all racists.”
Micha, I know that’s from a few days ago, but I needed that. Sorta makes me picture Mike as Gonard from Kappa Mikey, only not as muscular.
I was going to write that I felt Jerry’s words about Mike were too harsh for my taste. That I do find him quite infuriating because I dislike when people deliberatly behave stupid, and because he’s pìššìņg on an issue of great significance. I still think that way. Some of Jerry’s words were very harsh. But I have to say, I’ve argued with some really stupid people, but Mike is unique among them. At this stage you don’t really have to write anything. His rantings speak for themselves.
“So, is anyone else starting to think Mikey might be one of those simple AI programs you can find on the net?”
Yes, I’ve presented a similar theory, that Mike is actually a super computer that gained consciousness. Only a machine depends so heavily on dictonary definitions without any context, and does so so relentlessly. Remember this discussion when we are fighting guerilla warefare against mupltiple copies of the governor of California, or living in caves putting our faith in Kianu Reeves. It all starts here.
Look at Mike’s reply here. He pretty much admits that he is a computer, not a human being:
“Consider this as you review the part of your quote I’ve bolded above: There are no international laws, or US laws, to enforce the interpretation of history. If there were, holocaust deniers would be subject to international or US prosecution. So would flat-earthers who deny the Apollo moon landings.
I tell people computers are like genies: they don’t grant your wishes based on what you want — they grant your wishes based on what you ask for. Then you debug your fûçkìņg program, revising your wish until you get what you want.
The law is the same fûçkìņg way. You can’t tell the genie he got your wish wrong — to make you the most powerful man in the world — because the genie made you Hitler as the allies are bombing his bunker.
There are no laws to enforce the spirit of any laws.
So you tell me: legally, how many killings qualify as genocide? 3% of an ethnic group? 1%? Do all the aboriginal tribes in the Amazon count as a single ethnicity? Do the 99 Amazonian pygmies who believe Muhammed’s son-in-law counted as the first caliph count as separate Amazonian pygmies than the 101 who believe Muhammed’s son-in-law counted as the fourth caliph, as they are with Muslims? If a member of each tribe is murdered in tribal warefare, has one tribe suffered from genocide, but the other is just plain šhìŧ-out-of-luck?”
You seem Mike. We humans understand the meaning of words by refering to actuall human experience, to general knowledge. That’s how dictionary definitions are written. Most of us also don’t need laws to understand how to behave, to obey the spirit of laws, to conduct honest historical reasearch rather than holocaust denial.
If you want to compare yourself to a holocaust denier, that’s your business.
The irony is, that you’ve stepped into another subject that’s way over your head, even beyond history, the philosophy of language. I could barely understand it, but you’re like a 3 year old that snuck into Wittgenstein’s office.
Here is a relevant quote from Wiki:
“On Wittgenstein’s account, language is inextricably woven into the fabric of life, and as part of that fabric it works unproblematically. Philosophical problems arise, on this account, when language is forced from its proper home and into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks have been deliberately removed. Removed for what appear to be sound philosophical reasons, but which are, for Wittgenstein, the very source of the problem. Wittgenstein describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice; where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language (the language of the Tractatus), where all philosophical problems can be solved without the confusing and muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, just because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no actual work at all. There is much talk in the Investigations, then, of “idle wheels” and language being “on holiday” or a mere “ornament”, all of which are used to express the idea of what is lacking in philosophical contexts. To resolve the problems encountered there, Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the “rough ground” of ordinary language in use; that is, philosophers must “bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use.”
Now let’s try to explain things in Mike-language.
Let’s go back to the Britannica definition I posted earlier.
It begin’s with:
“the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group.”
This is also the Webster dictionary definition Mike started with before he decided to distort Lamkin’s words.
Now he can’t use it, because in Mike’s distorted mind, this definition means that only the complete elimination of a race is genocide.
Furthermore, he interpreted the word systematic to mean racially motivated, although it is actually refering to the use of a system, like the state or the army, in order to eliminate a race.
Even funnier, when encountering the definition from the Oxford Compendium, 9th edition
genocide // n.
the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.
[Greek genos ‘race’ + -cide]
Which states clearly that genocide is mass killing, he replied that this definition is the result of change in the meaning over time. You understand, the word genocide, invented after the holocaust, first meant any racial killing, and then changed to refer only to mass killing [Mike, I’m being ironic. Most people understand that].
Back to Britannica:
“The word, from the Greek genos, meaning “race,” “nation,” or “tribe,” and the Latin cide, meaning “killing,” was coined after events in Europe in 1933-45 called for a legal concept to describe the deliberate destruction of large groups. Despite many historical incidents of genocide and the modern case of the massacre of Armenians by the Turks at the outbreak of World War I, there had been no attempt until after World War II to construct a legal framework through which the international community could deal with cases of mass extermination of peoples.”
Here we have the historical context of the word genocide. You see, Lamkin did not invent the term out of thin air for the benefit of language challenged internet trolls. He did it because they needed a word to describe what happened in the holocaust, the event you’re trivializing with every word you write. Because that’s how words work in the real world.
Britannica goes on to give more historical context, before reaching the Lamkin definition which you enjoy to twist.
“In 1946, under the impact of revelations at the Nürnberg and other war-crimes trials, the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed that “genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable.” In 1948 the General Assembly approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which went into effect in 1951.
The fact that under the convention genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of peace or of war distinguishes it from the “crimes against humanity,” defined by the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg as acts committed in connection with crimes against peace, or war crimes.”
And here is the definition you distort:
“Under the terms of the convention, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Now Mike, being the disturbed person that you are, you are incapable of reading this paragraph even in the context of the previous paragraphs, not to say of actual history. You lack intellectual honesty or intelligence, so without a clear law telling you that the phrase “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part” does not mean one or two people killed for racial hatred, your logical circuits go into an endless loop of paradoxes.
You are incapable of understanding that “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group,” is completely different from “ANY racially motivated murder,” because it is a definition created specifically to deal with an effort to destroy a mass of people, not one or two. Your mind get stuck on “in part” and can go no further.
As a result you start generating further absurdities. For example, you don’t understand when Sean writes ironically that you are a genius. And you read my statement that the murder of Jew by a neo-nazi is not genocide, as if I said that it is genocide. Is it surprising that Bladestar started to think you claim that any killing of a person belonging to a race is genocide? After all, you have cut the phrase “killing members of the group” completely out of any connection to its actual meaning in the context of genocide, i.e. the intent to destroy a race.
But you know what’s really sad. That despite the fact that I broke down and spoonfed the issue to you, and that nobody agrees with you, and that you are clearly out of yor depth, and that you are incapable of having a coherent discussion beyond simply repeating the same quote and the same insults, you will continue to insist on your absurd claim, that you are the only one who understand the true meaning off the word genocide, and that everybody else (including Lamkin himself), is racist. The reason for that is that you prefer to act like an idiot than admit that you misunderstood the term.
Mike wrote:
“I tell people computers are like genies: they don’t grant your wishes based on what you want — they grant your wishes based on what you ask for. Then you debug your fûçkìņg program, revising your wish until you get what you want.
The law is the same fûçkìņg way. You can’t tell the genie he got your wish wrong — to make you the most powerful man in the world — because the genie made you Hitler as the allies are bombing his bunker.
There are no laws to enforce the spirit of any laws.
So you tell me: legally, how many killings qualify as genocide? 3% of an ethnic group? 1%? Do all the aboriginal tribes in the Amazon count as a single ethnicity? Do the 99 Amazonian pygmies who believe Muhammed’s son-in-law counted as the first caliph count as separate Amazonian pygmies than the 101 who believe Muhammed’s son-in-law counted as the fourth caliph, as they are with Muslims? If a member of each tribe is murdered in tribal warefare, has one tribe suffered from genocide, but the other is just plain šhìŧ-out-of-luck?”
Jerry C wrote about trolls:
“That’s easy. People act like a troll because they have nothing worthwhile to offer and they get off on what they think is power. In most trolls’ cases, they mistake their own stupidity for strength and the reactions that some have to their stupidity as a sign of their power or superiority over others. They then get a strange satisfaction over this perceived power of theirs.”
Clearly Mike’s behavior matches a troll. He does not care about genocide or racism. He thinks is gives him the power of a genie to uunderstand literaly and out of context, or rather misunderstand the meaning of the words used by Raphael Lemkin, the dictionary, and by everybody else.
He’s like the kid who can’t help but giggle in the silent moment in our (Israel’s) yearly holocaust memorial.
Micha, once again I applaud you.