Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 21, 2007 12:50 PM
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me.
I’m with Jerry on this one.
The exchanges in this blog are increasingly becoming dominated by the personal agendas of people like Mike and Jeffrey Frawley. Rather than discussing and exchanging ideas, we’re dwelling on personalities with ever greater frequency. I believe this is happening at the expense of the more interesting conversations we could be having.
Let me be clear: I am not making any values judgments. If others of you enjoy engaging in discussions with and about trolls, then by all means do so. It’s neither morally wrong nor harmful.
I, however, have become thoroughly bored with discussions like this and will likely disengage until the conversations again come around to ideas instead of personalities. I understand that this isn’t my blog, and no one owes it to me to have the kinds of conversations I prefer. But that shouldn’t stop me from offering an opinion: I am far more interested in the thoughts most of you have about the world than the thoughts you have about Mike and Jeffrey. Most of you here are far more interesting to me than they’ll ever be.
Posted by: Patrick Calloway at May 21, 2007 05:25 PM
Actually, I had more in mind your continual usage of it’s suggestion as the ultimate insult, such as you just did in your attempt to provoke Jerry to respond to you. And in older characterizations of posters who are friendly to one another as being in a gay relationship in terms that made it clear you veiw it as the worst thing you could suggest.
Oh, Mike’s on that kick again?
Which of the Bills am I with this week? Or has he expanded his fantasy matches a bit? Never mind, I’m not curious enough to go find which of his posts it’s in and read it myself and will likely care less by the time anyone else tells me. Oh well.
Besides, let him spew that intolerance and hatred. It never bothered me before and it doesn’t now. I’m secure enough in the knowledge of my hetero-ness and I just can’t get myself to view being called gay as an insult because too many of the gay friends I have are pretty good people. If nothing else, it says a world about Mike’s own repressed bigotry and self doubts that he so often feels that others will feel the way he does when that label is tossed their way by him. Rather small, sad and pathetic really.
Gosh, Mike, I didn’t really think that anyone would be stupid enough to not get that I was just trying to mock your writing style by creating something like the ultimate Mike sentence. I used the phrase “So my latest attempt at the ultimate Mike sentence:” as a sort of secret message to those who could crack the subtle code. Alas! I see your point that it probably just flew over everyone else’s head and, believing the line to be yours, it has diminished the incredibly high regard they have for you. I don sackcloth and smite myself in humble supplication.
As for your supposed homophobia…frankly I don’t think you’re homophobic. You just think that calling someone gay is an insult that will hurt them and get the reaction you desire. Homophobia seems an inappropriate description.
Review the bolded text: that qualifies as homophobia. As far as you’ve disqualified me as homophobic, thank you.
Fág….
Creepy, loathsome, ignorant, there are better, more accurate descriptions.
I’m not arbitrarily introducing words that illicit shame into the discussion — you are. And falsely attributing it to me as “the ultimate Mike sentence.” How does that not trump as creepy, loathsome, and ignorant simply disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality?
Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I won’t replace anything. Everything stands as it is. You can feel free to say I didn’t “get you.” I don’t want you.
1. This definition cannot be countered. It’s analogous to a conjugation table.
2. A typical example can be countered or challenged, I guess – by something anomalous. The psychoanalytical model can be countered by nightmares about one’s parents – but that might not be useful to your argument.
3. If you challenge or counter this one, all you get is an ungrammatical sentence. Do you want one?
4. Could it be this one? Perhaps. Challenging the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline is definitely something you can do. That is “being wrong, misinformed, or counter to common wisdom.” On rare occasions, one might even be “right” – very rare occasions, I would think.
“Analogous to a conjugation table” was not included in any of the definitions of paradigm you provided, I never disagreed with the definitions of paradigm you provided, and nothing I’ve said depends on deviating from the definitions my application of the word qualify for.
Let me be clear: I am not making any values judgments. If others of you enjoy engaging in discussions with and about trolls, then by all means do so. It’s neither morally wrong nor harmful.
What is the hardship in understanding your application of the word “troll” is a value judgment?
As far as such a hardship is not mine, my reasoning does not depend on the pretense of invulnerability. As your reasoning does, you are vulnerable to any reductio ad absurdum proving you wrong. What are you trying to accomplish, if not invite for yourself a death by a thousand paper cuts?
Which of the Bills am I with this week? Or has he expanded his fantasy matches a bit? Never mind, I’m not curious enough to go find which of his posts it’s in and read it myself and will likely care less by the time anyone else tells me. Oh well.
Aah, the men-watching-pørņ-without-women-and-together fantasy. I forgot about that one. Which seems natural, since I didn’t introduce it into the discussion it appeared in — Bill Myers did.
If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations [against] me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Jerry, when are you going to realize everyone else reading this has started a pool on when we’re going to give into our passions, and finally rent the room. (I don’t doubt I’ve said something you have a problems getting over — I just have no idea what I said that could qualify.)
Besides, let him spew that intolerance and hatred. It never bothered me before and it doesn’t now. I’m secure enough in the knowledge of my hetero-ness and I just can’t get myself to view being called gay as an insult because too many of the gay friends I have are pretty good people. If nothing else, it says a world about Mike’s own repressed bigotry and self doubts that he so often feels that others will feel the way he does when that label is tossed their way by him. Rather small, sad and pathetic really.
Well, good. So you won’t feel bad when your gay friends ask you when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room.
Mike, the reason you think that you have ‘corrected’ me by repeatedly posting the snippets you took from the article you posted and from the Summa Theologica, is because you are — repeat after me — an idiot.
All you have proven is your already established inability to process and comprehend texts as well as your lack of intellectual honesty to try to really learn anything, or actually research a subject that you do not understand, or to present your own ideas in a coherent and sincere way. Anybody on this thread who has read my postings and yours know that simply by reading what was written, so I have no need to prove it to them. And you are too stupid, and worse, too intellectualy dishonest to actually deal with my explanation no matter how much effort I put into it. Why? because you’re an idiot. You are just interested in selectively quoting and distorting the words of people, from Dante to the posters on this thread to PAD himself, so that they may fit the delusions that you harbor in your bizarre little mind. While at the same time, you are not really interested in presenting any substantial ideas of your own in a coherent and meaningful manner, but rather shift and alter them so as to evade the holes easily poked in them by the people on this board. So I see no reason to waste time conversing with you on this subject, or any subject for that matter, as if you were a normal person.
It is actually a shame, because the issues are worthy of a serious discussion, and underneath all your stupidity there are some ideas worth exploring. But you are incapable of articulating these ideas or processing the ideas of others in a way that would make real discussion possible. Why? Because you’re an idiot.
Moreover, the only person on this board who has a ‘predatory agenda’ (now that Robert Preston has left) is you. You are the only person who comes to this thread not to engage in serious discussion and conversation but to hammer everybody with your twisted ideas, while twisting and ignoring the ideas of others. Why? Because you are an idiot.
What a waste.
I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures….
Moreover, the only person on this board who has a ‘predatory agenda’ (now that Robert Preston has left) is you.
How do you reconcile the incompatibility of the words you present?
Bill Myers: “Let me be clear: I am not making any values judgments.”
No, Bill, you are making value judgments. Everyone who puts up any sort of argument about anything does. We only argue about two things: facts and values – 1. “Such and such thing happened.” “No! It did not!” and 2. “This is the right way to see this issue.” “You’re completely wrong. That’s no way to see it.” We can be abusive or not, but any discussion of opinions involves value judgment.
The important question is whether one is making sense. Let us disagree – respectfully or not – on which of us is doing that.
Review the bolded text: that qualifies as homophobia. As far as you’ve disqualified me as homophobic, thank you.
Uh huh. In my opinion, homophobia should be reserved for those poor folks who are genuinely unable to get over their own fear of gays. That’s what a phobia is, you see. Exploiting the homophobia that may or may not exist in others–which is what you do–is something else and, if anything, more repulsive than someone who can’t help themselves. So, your welcome…for what it’s worth. fear of gays is something that many a high school bigot has learned, with age and wisdom, to overcome. As opposed to having a rotten personality, which, at this point in your life, you are probably stuck with.
I’m not arbitrarily introducing words that illicit shame into the discussion — you are. And falsely attributing it to me as “the ultimate Mike sentence.” How does that not trump as creepy, loathsome, and ignorant simply disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality?
Oh yes, that’s what you were doing–introducing us to the fact that homosexuality exists! Because, we’ve somehow missed that. We’ve ignored all past discussions on the subject. We never read those posts from our gay members talking about their lives. Blissful ignorance, that’s what we had but you’ve opened our eyes.
Admit it Mike; you’d love to call people fágš, if you thought you could get away with it. So you do everything but use the word. Ain’t fooling anyone and it isn’t even working! That’s the funniest part–you toss out whatever credibility you might have left with the gay insults and it doesn’t even have the desired effect on the people you throw them at. It might have bugged people in 9th grade. We’ve grown up, Mike. Try it.
You won’t though. I think you discovered a long time ago that whatever genuine gifts you have it wasn’t enough to get the attention you want. 9 times out of 10, when you post a non-snarky point it doesn’t get much in the way of a response…so you go for the tried and true. Oh well, a man has to know his limitations.
No, Bill, you are making value judgments. Everyone who puts up any sort of argument about anything does. We only argue about two things: facts and values…
No, we debate and discuss 3 things here. The topics cover facts, value judgments/calls and opinions.
It was my opinion some time ago that Mike is not worth engaging in discussion. Even when he starts a day seemingly lucid, Mike swiftly goes down his tired and well worn route of troll (at best) or borderline mental subject (at worst) with only the slightest nudge. After so many threads, being called a Nazi, racist, predator, stalker, etc. just loses all of its comedic or entertainment value.
Bill Myers came to the same opinion. He expressed that opinion. I jokingly did the same above with the Star Wars quote. I’m not judging anyone here for how they spend their free time. Just looking at those who’ve been gumbed by the rabid attack poodle today… I respect Micha’s debates too much, Mulligan is a great source for obscure horror discussions and teacher POVs and others here are fun debaters as well.
Disagreeing on whether or not to engage in Mike Debates is the equivalent of TV watching. I can’t stand CSI: Miami in the least. Guys I work with love it. I think The Dresden Files is one of the best new shows of the season. Guys I work with either think I have weird taste in TV shows or have no idea what I’m talking about. Good books too. Not as good as The Garrett Files by Cook though. Different opinions. No real judgments on others.
Same here.
“I, however, have become thoroughly bored with discussions like this and will likely disengage until the conversations again come around to ideas instead of personalities.”
Mike creeps his head usually when a discussion has dwindled, and a new one has not yet started. I think even those of us who enjoy poking fun at Mike at our free time agree that other subject would be more interesting. I can only suggest bringing up other subjects worthy of discussion as soon as possible rather than wait until PAD posts a new thread. What about zombies?
Bill, I think it is time to take Jeffrey out of the penalty box, at least until further notice. Unlike Mike he seems to have taken responsibility to helping making the quality of discussions better by avoiding trollish behavior, and so should we.
Jeffrey, as far as I’m concerned, I am looking forward to conversing with you so long as our conversation does not devolve into a Mike-ish discussion. I don’t see any reason that that should happen regardless of some past mistakes on your or my part.
——————
Posted by: Mike at May 21, 2007 09:46 PM
“I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures….”
“Moreover, the only person on this board who has a ‘predatory agenda’ (now that Robert Preston has left) is you.”
“How do you reconcile the incompatibility of the words you present?”
If you attack me, or others here who I respect, with your snarky behabior, I will smack you down, but the attack was your predatory behavior not mine. I’d rather have a normal conversation with you, and have offered you the opportnuity more than once, but if you choose to engage in your snarky behavior, than my only alternatives are to smack you down or remain silent while you continue. Perhaps it would be more Ghandiesque of me to ignore you, but there are times when I choose to smack you down.
In the Imus thread you could have walked away with your pretend victory, as you could in the Dante discussion. But you prefered to strut around and brag. So you got smacked around.
You asked a seemingly serious question about biblical law. I gave you a serious reply, you response was snarky and inane — this was predatory beavior on your part, and you got smacked for it.
“I can’t stand CSI: Miami in the least.”
Me too.
Can’t stand that redhead guy, really can’t.
Let’s discuss this… quickly, before Mike comes back.
Review the bolded text: that qualifies as homophobia. As far as you’ve disqualified me as homophobic, thank you.
Uh huh. In my opinion, homophobia should be reserved for those poor folks who are genuinely unable to get over their own fear of gays.
That would make homophobia a bigger tent than “thinking that calling someone gay is an insult,” now, doesn’t it? Thank you for letting me know I don’t qualify for that bigger tent.
Exploiting the homophobia that may or may not exist in others–which is what you do–is something else and, if anything, more repulsive than someone who can’t help themselves.
So disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality is more repulsive than homophobia?
Fág.
I’m not arbitrarily introducing words that illicit shame into the discussion — you are. And falsely attributing it to me as “the ultimate Mike sentence.” How does that not trump as creepy, loathsome, and ignorant simply disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality?
Oh yes, that’s what you were doing–introducing us to the fact that homosexuality exists! Because, we’ve somehow missed that. We’ve ignored all past discussions on the subject. We never read those posts from our gay members talking about their lives. Blissful ignorance, that’s what we had but you’ve opened our eyes.
“Disregarding” and “introducing” don’t resembling anything approximating synonyms. I disregarded a taboo against admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality. You heard and relayed the word “fág” where no one said it previously.
Admit it Mike; you’d love to call people fágš, if you thought you could get away with it. So you do everything but use the word. Ain’t fooling anyone and it isn’t even working! That’s the funniest part–you toss out whatever credibility you might have left with the gay insults and it doesn’t even have the desired effect on the people you throw them at. It might have bugged people in 9th grade. We’ve grown up, Mike. Try it.
I just asked Jerry if he realized everyone else was wondering when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room. That doesn’t denote an appetite to use the word “fág.” I can’t disagree the arbitrary implementation of the word itself does.
I think you discovered a long time ago that whatever genuine gifts you have it wasn’t enough to get the attention you want. 9 times out of 10, when you post a non-snarky point it doesn’t get much in the way of a response…so you go for the tried and true. Oh well, a man has to know his limitations.
As far as others here attempt to coerce through ridicule, and you’ve sunk to attempting to coerce by taking shame-hostages, employing reason to shelter the individual from coercion seems worthwhile. It’s a shame you consider the freedom from that coercion as trading down from the privileges of implementing it.
After so many threads, being called a Nazi, racist, predator, stalker, etc. just loses all of its comedic or entertainment value.
Jerry, as far as you seemed on the verge of posting contact information such as my address and phone number, I don’t need to be reminded portraying you as a stalker. When did I call you a nazi, a racist, or a predator? Hëll, remind me when I called anyone here a nazi, a racist, or a predator. My words, not someone’s post attributing words to me I never said.
What about zombies?
Anybody catch 28 Weeks Later yet? Is it as good as 28 Days Later was? Yeah, I know, but I’ve given up telling people that they’re not reaaaallllllyyyy zombies and joined the masses on this one.
Any truth to the rumor that Adrenalin Productions’ next zombie epic was supposed to be a spoof about a zombie getting elected President of the U.S., but the film project got canned when nobody could tell the difference between the mindless undead in the film and the current administration.
And am I the only one here who thinks that Cheney switched out the ‘a’ in his name just to throw everybody off for a while?
How about a topic that’s an offshoot of the threads topic?
Anybody else been following the story of the hospital visit by the White House to the former A.G. in an attempt to get him to sign off on some sleazy stuff while he was still wonked out on drugs? Could that tip the scales towards warranting impeachment (as much of a waste of time that would be now.) Any real meat there or just an empty sandwich?
Can’t stand that redhead guy, really can’t.
Actually, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Both his acting and the one lead female’s acting is just plain painful to watch. None of the CSI shows are the greatest things on TV, but the shows’ casts make them viewable. Hëll, “House” is only so-so when you look at the actual scripts. Hugh Laurie is dámņ near the sole thing that makes the show worth giving up the hour every week.
Jerry Chandler: I could argue that arguments about opinion almost inevitably shade into value judgment, but the distinction in our opinions (huge, big word) isn’t important enough to argue.
On the subject of one person threatening to release the personal information of another, I have no idea who has actually done what to whom. It is definitely a serious breach, no matter the provocations – well – almost. We could come up with extreme “To Catch a Predator” situations in which someone might feel justified, but in most cases it would be inexcusable.
Yes. I’m talking to you, Mr.____________@______.com!
If you attack me, or others here who I respect, with your snarky behabior, I will smack you down, but the attack was your predatory behavior not mine.
Wait… what attack are you referring to? If the words are available, what’s stopping you from citing what I say when you accuse me of something?
The colossal bad taste of the White House visit to John Ashcroft’s hospital room says a lot about the Administration, but it’s far too little to give any prospect of a successful impeachment. While cruel and tasteless, it is unlikely to be illegal or prohibited by any enforceable standards. There have been enough Attorney Generals with bad ethics and limited legal skills in the last 40 years that I wouldn’t be prepared to swear Gonzalez is the worst of them. (Remember John Mitchell, who went to prison, and Ed Meese, who never let election funding and tax regulations get in the way of helping his friends out. His refrain of “I didn’t know I had to report that” sounded bad coming from the highest level of the Justice Department.)
(Heston voice) Ðámņ you!!!! You made me wade through a long, rambling and mind-numbing Mike post to figure out what the hëll you were talking about.
On the subject of one person threatening to release the personal information of another, I have no idea who has actually done what to whom.
No one’s ever done anything of the kind here. Had anyone done so, PAD would have banned or disemvoweled them long ago.
Mike was getting seriously deranged and loopy for several threads running. Several people were wondering whether he was merely a troll or truly a maladjusted individual. I pointed out that I thought I knew the answer to that and to who our Mike was. How did I come up with this bit of private, confidential and oh so secret information? Simple really. Mike used to link his website through his name in the same manner that Myers does now.
Mike issued a challenge to point out any quotes by him that lived up to his psycho rep or some such and I went into the archives to do some cut and pastes. There was the link leading to his website full of Mike-isms and bizarreness rivaling the most demented minds on record. He has his name plastered all over the site as well as links to other sites that he frequented. Any and every bit of “personal” and “private” information about Mike that any of us here might have “threatened” to “reveal” about Mike is information that he knowingly, willingly and intentionally gave us for years on this site.
And, no, he didn’t give the link by accident. Mike is a coder and a computer geek. He knew what he was doing when he did it. Oh. and the answer to the question raised was, after seeing Mike’s own words on his own site and others’ sites, was that he truly is a maladjusted individual and not merely just a troll.
Me- Exploiting the homophobia that may or may not exist in others–which is what you do–is something else and, if anything, more repulsive than someone who can’t help themselves.
The Idiot- So disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality is more repulsive than homophobia?
Thanks, Mike. If anyone ever needs a brief example of why you are regarded in such little esteem as you are, there’s a great snippet to cut and paste.
You haven’t been this off your nut since the last time you threatened to sic CNN on us (STILL the classic by which all other trolls will be measured by!)
Onto much better subjects:
Anybody catch 28 Weeks Later yet? Is it as good as 28 Days Later was? Yeah, I know, but I’ve given up telling people that they’re not reaaaallllllyyyy zombies and joined the masses on this one.
About time…if it shambles like a zombie and groans like a zombie, then by God, call it a zombie! Let’s not be slaves to semantics here…
Ok, 28 WEEKS LATER….SPOILERS SPOILERS Spoilers!
I liked it a lot but it just missed being great.
The basic concept was sound and the zombies/infected make a great and scary addition to the mythos. The speed by which they change is what makes it so frightening–the person who was your loved one just 10 seconds earlier suddenly becomes your killer. The scene where civilians are locked in a room and a single infected individual spreads the rage virus through them like wildfire is chilling (and the only scene where the now cliched Blair Witch shaky cam stuff works.
Problems–plot holes that really take you out of the picture. 2 kids can escape from an armed camp that is supposed to be virtually impregnable. The aforementioned locking in of civilians into a place where the zombies can get in and the newly infected can get out. The fact that the bridges and tunnels were not capable of being sealed. The terrible decision to have one zombie keep showing up over and over, like a bad slasher movie villain.
SPOILERS!!! The most interesting aspect is the politics. I’ve seen some folks try to say that it is a commentary on the Iraq war and that it portrays the US military in a bad light. Well, maybe, but has anyone commented on the fact that every single disastrous thing that happens is due not to military hardline attitudes but by the exact opposite? If there is a message to the movie it is a very bleak one: the values we treasure the most are allowable only because of our civilization. Strip that away and compassion and altruism only gets us and everything we care about destroyed.
It’s kind of a nod to the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD where we root for the hero and boo the cowardly dickweed only to realize upon reflection that every action the hero takes results in the death of the other characters and he survives only because he ultimately follows the plan of the aforementioned dickweed.
I’m stoked for 28 MONTHS LATER.
Any truth to the rumor that Adrenalin Productions’ next zombie epic was supposed to be a spoof about a zombie getting elected President of the U.S., but the film project got canned when nobody could tell the difference between the mindless undead in the film and the current administration.
No, it’s a zombie western (check out Christine Parker’s amazing website at http://www.fistfulofbrains.com-it's a bit slow right now but she’s doing some very cool things) but the script I’m working on has a very post-Katrina vibe to it. I hope it actually comes to pass, even though I will have to do an alarming amount of acting in it.
You haven’t been this off your nut since the last time you threatened to sic CNN on us…
Heh, HOW did I forget that little gem?
About time…if it shambles like a zombie and groans like a zombie, then by God, call it a zombie!
Bu… Bu… But they’re not reallydeadandtheycanbekilledbygunfiretoplacesotherthentheheadand…
No… Must contain urge… Cannot nit pick creatures… Must insert Fulci DVD into player…
It’s on my Tue./Wed. to do list. Thanks for the info.
Bill Myers: Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?
Sorry I didn’t respond to this sooner.
As you recall, this began when I opined that anybody who claimed to be a good Christian and yet still supported the death penalty when the Bible says not to kill was a hypocrite.
Then I found out that it may actually be a commandment against committing murder, instead of any sort of killing of a human being (even when I thought it was just literally “Thou shalt not kill”, I thought it went without saying that this pertained only to humans. I don’t know why).
So when I found that out, I had to rethink my assessment of whether or not these individuals are indeed as hypocritical as I believed.
While thinking about that, I began to wonder if the death penalty can be considered murder. If so, then somebody who says they are a good Christian and continues to support it remains a hypocrite. When I say “murder” I’m using what I thought it meant as opposed to what the Bible may say it means or what any legal texts or dictionaries say it means.
In my view, a murder takes place whenever one human being intentionally takes the life of another one in a situation where they have not been provoked into action and their own life or well-being (as well as the lives or well-being of others around them) is not in danger from the soon-to-be deceased.
Also in my view, the crimes of the victim aren’t really a factor in determining whether or not they are being “murdered.” They may be a factor in determining whether the world will be a better place with them gone, but not in whether their death is a “murder” or not.
I mean, let’s say you have an organized crime figure who is responsible for a lot of death and suffering. If a rival mobster has him killed, that’s still murder. Sure, he’s guilty, but everybody here would consider that a murder, wouldn’t they? Also, I think everybody would agree that Jeffrey Dahmer’s death at the hands of a fellow inmate can be called “murder.” Dahmer was *extremely* guilty, but what happened to him was still murder.
It won’t surprise me one bit if I get replies to this ranging from “Yeah, sure” to “Are you a @$%^ing idiot?!”, but the killing of Dahmer may actually have been a case of somebody being killed for his crimes when it served no purpose. I know, I know, a lot of people have been put on death row for doing stuff that pales in comparison to Dahmer’s horrific crimes. But hear me out.
From all I know about him, Dahmer did what he did not because he wanted to but because of sexual urges he had difficulty controlling. He’d kill or rape somebody and enjoy it while he was doing it, and hate himself for it afterwards. Then the urges would come back and he’d find himself tempted to do the same thing again, and eventually he gave in to those urges once more.
After he was imprisoned, there were accounts that Dahmer had made progress in breaking that pattern and getting rid of those compulsions. It could, of course, have all been an act. But prisons are supposed to at least attempt to rehabilitate inmates, and this is a case where the man may have actually been rehabilitated.
I am not suggesting that he should have been placed back into society. There would have been too much of a risk that he’d revert to type, and if Dahmer was sincere about the change in himself during his final days then he likely would’ve agreed. Still, if what we have here is a guy who went from being a sick monster to being a decent person and THEN had somebody kill him as punishment for stuff he did while he was still a sick monster…that’s tragic. And I wonder how often the same thing happens with those executed by the state.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 21, 2007 11:27 PM
Micha: “Can’t stand that redhead guy, really can’t.
“Jerry: “Actually, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Both his acting and the one lead female’s acting is just plain painful to watch. None of the CSI shows are the greatest things on TV, but the shows’ casts make them viewable.”
I don’t know. The original CSI (which I like to call CSI classic) tends to show much more creativety in the writing, directing and acting departments. I think this is also one of thereasons that we care more about thecast of that show — they have been better written.
——————-
Rob: “While thinking about that, I began to wonder if the death penalty can be considered murder. If so, then somebody who says they are a good Christian and continues to support it remains a hypocrite. When I say “murder” I’m using what I thought it meant as opposed to what the Bible may say it means or what any legal texts or dictionaries say it means.”
Somebody who supports the death penalty and says he’s a good Christian cannot be considered a hypocrite for disobeying the 6th commandment. We’ve established that. Can he be considered a hypocrite for not practicing ‘love thy enemy,’ forgiveness and other good stuff like that? I do not know. There are so many kinds of Christianity.
But all this is just a game really. At the end we go past the attempt to stump Christians and onward to the real question: is capital punishment justified, and if not, why?
Mike: “a systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word” (#1) is analogous to a conjugation table. You seem to have quite a bit of trouble telling the difference between what other people say and what you think they are accusing you of saying. “I never said X.” No; You didn’t. I said X. The DSM-IV might have some suggestions of why this poses a problem.
Mike was getting seriously deranged and loopy for several threads running. Several people were wondering whether he was merely a troll or truly a maladjusted individual. I pointed out that I thought I knew the answer to that and to who our Mike was. How did I come up with this bit of private, confidential and oh so secret information? Simple really. Mike used to link his website through his name in the same manner that Myers does now.
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information.
If this is the incident that ignited your obsessive need to accuse me of things you can’t cite — well, why didn’t you just post the link I had already made available on this site, if that was your threat?
Mike issued a challenge to point out any quotes by him that lived up to his psycho rep or some such and I went into the archives to do some cut and pastes.
And Jerry provided quotes that led nowhere. That seems to be why he doesn’t even bother to refer to actual incidents when making accusations — they fall apart in comparison to the source posts.
You haven’t been this off your nut since the last time you threatened to sic CNN on us (STILL the classic by which all other trolls will be measured by!)
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information.
If you don’t understand the threat of having your personal contact info revealed to a bunch of people who indulge in coercion by intimidation and the taking of shame-hostages, the nut is you.
Me- Exploiting the homophobia that may or may not exist in others–which is what you do–is something else and, if anything, more repulsive than someone who can’t help themselves.
The Idiot-
So disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality is more repulsive than homophobia?
Thanks, Mike. If anyone ever needs a brief example of why you are regarded in such little esteem as you are, there’s a great snippet to cut and paste.
I guess your answer to my question is a “yes.”
The posters here resort to coercion by ridicule and, in your and Jerry’s case, taking shame-hostages. Such coercion is a cousin to the low esteem that greeted Jackie Robinson, and I’m not sorry to have earned it.
Jeffrey, you are employing enough pronouns in your series of posts that I don’t see how you’ve explained my 9:21 pm reply did not apply to your post it was responding to. Please feel free recap if you need me to reply or rephrase something I’ve said.
Mike: If you don’t like the number of pronouns I use, there’s not much I can do to help you. I’ve made it 48 years so far, and might not be able to recreate myself in your image. In any case, the number of pronouns one uses has no relation to whether one has explained or responded to anything at all. In this case, you dismissed my reference to a conjugation table because you didn’t see the analogy with “systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word.” We must disagree there: I do see an analogy.
As far as bringing up Jackie Robinson goes, I didn’t know Jackie Robinson; I didn’t work with Jackie Robinson, but you, sir, are no Jackie Robinson! (Yes, that is a low blow, but I don’t feel repentant.)
So, you refuse to summarize your own criticism? Well, then why shouldn’t I feel free to arbitrarily summarize your position for you? — you’re wrong.
As far as bringing up Jackie Robinson goes, I didn’t know Jackie Robinson; I didn’t work with Jackie Robinson, but you, sir, are no Jackie Robinson! (Yes, that is a low blow, but I don’t feel repentant.)
My reference to Jackie Robinson did not depend on my portraying myself as anything resembling him. The blow is low, but does not apply to me.
Mike, when speaking to people it is important to use a common language, not words and phrases one has developed to make sense of the world that are fairly unique to oneself. That is, if communication is your goal.
Which leads to the obvious question: What is your goal here, Mike? Not a threat or an attempt at coercion, or an implication that you should not be here, or anything else nefarious or hidden agenda-like. Just honest curiosity.
Yawn. So we can add “taking shame-hostages” to the list of Mikeisms. And–cool beans!–it’s a phrase that doesn’t even show up when you google it! So it’s an Original Mike, not just something he cribbed off of some sociology professor. Have you considered getting a copyright?
Bill Mulligan: If we join Mike’s fan club he may show mercy on our poor souls.
(I’m making a special effort to spell “Mulligan” correctly. Only Bill is permitted artistic license there.)
Okay, it’s been rolling around, but I think I’ve got it…Mike makes me think of some nightmare mix of Jeff Foxworthy, a little Yoda, and some Deep Blue crossed with HAL 9000 for the errant computer-like redundancy he uses.
How about the character Mel Gibson played in cospiracy theory combined with a little bit of real world mel Gibson?
Maybe a touch…but I can understand the points Gibson makes, even if I don’t agree with them. Mike…sometimes it seems like he’s not using English. At least not correctly.
And–cool beans!–it’s a phrase that doesn’t even show up when you google it!
So, I’m not the only one who thought it looked so odd that they would check it out. I’m surprised he’s not doing his little ‘Tm’ thing with it already. Not that anybody else would want it.
Sigh, I’ll make one and only one post directly to Mike. And I mean just this one. I won’t respond to any other post of yours, Mike. So have all the fun you want to have doing your usual out of context quoting thing. I present the following from a darker time just so that newer posters can in fact see that Mike is both nuts and a liar.
Still, this was the era that birthed the Zombie Apocalypse Party, formerly The Association of People Who Don’t Understand the Concept of the Word Acronym (SPECTRE). You’ve gotta love and support a political party that designs a platform around guns, food, more guns, zombie killing, tire irons, swords, even more guns and extra planks of zombie killing.
And I’m still waiting for the first paycheck due me for my office post.
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information. If you don’t understand the threat of having your personal contact info revealed to a bunch of people who indulge in coercion by intimidation and the taking of shame-hostages, the nut is you.
Micha, give up on reason with Mad Mikey. I know that you’re hoping his idiotness is an act and that he may drop it if you talk nice to him. He won’t because it’s not an act.
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.
I could be wrong. He could be a dimbulb 11 year old who is using the first name of another net troll or he could be the Mike I think he is. But most 11 year olds are actually brighter then the guy I’m thinking of so I think he would come off better then the real deal.
If it’s the Mike I think it is, then none of this is an act or an attempt to be troll-like. This guy really is this screwed in the head and has spent quite a few years crawling around the net showing proof of that. The 2 + 2 = 7 logic on display here is the norm for Mad Mikey and not merely something that he’s been doing just for us.
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.
Mad Mikey, does your definition of “intimidation” mean telling others that you are a known screwball with brain damage…
When the basis of you calling me a screwball with brain damage is you getting caught 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, it does.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
“…maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool.”
And Mike makes yet another leap off the cliff of sanity and into the abyss of his own dementia. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Bill… No, not you, Bill… I want Bill. Bill, can you hand me that thing? Yeah, that’s it. Thanks.
Mike, I now shroud you on this thread. You have gone over a new edge of insanity that even I didn’t think you could go over. Your dementia has reached new levels as yet unseen on this site. You may have the last word between us for this thread and then you may bug off for all I care.
“Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 10:48 PM
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
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.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.”
Now, you may ask yourselves what started this and how it can be viewed as crazy, demented or paranoid. Simple. Mike tends to post in lots of places ranging from his own blogspot to this one and a fair host of places in-between. This means that he has a history of comments elsewhere that some may have seen and that you can use to get a better idea of if he’s just yanking our chains or he really is nuts. I pointed out that I think I know who he is and that he really is just that goofy.
Not the first time that has been done here. Others have pointed out that random posters here are so and so from Byrne’s board or some other place. No one has ever reacted by being so dementedly paranoid that they declared that this expression of belief of identity was intimidation and race privilege.
Posted by Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM 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.
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.
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?
Never mentioned personal information. Made it very clear that I didn’t know you beyond web postings. Made it clear that I have no (see, ZERO) desire to be anywhere near you. Made it even more clear that I was talking about your online presence as what I knew about you and not anything you wanted to dream up.
Even better is the statement from your one post where you reference specifically the instance of websites and hate spam from the Malkin incident. You never mentioned peep one about fears of your home number, address or city of residence in any of your ramblings. You did mention your site, hate spam and the like. Just goes to further back the fact that you’re telling lies about the facts from then now or that you’re living in a dementedly dark reality of your own making and you actually believe the fantasy world you’ve constructed.
PSA for new posters over. You now know that Mike is insane and lies about what was and wasn’t said in regards to him and his posts. Now, excuse me please, I have to go shower. This little trip through Mike Memory Lane left me all covered in slime. Hopefully, I won’t live to regret this mistaken act of actually responding to the little twit.
Again: This isn’t an open invitation to debate, Mike. This is the ONLY POST HERE that I will make that directly responds to you in any way, shape or form. You may now spend the next two weeks ripping things out of context and endlessly spinning your wheels in an attempt to rework reality to suite your image of the world and have the last word. I will not assist you in shutting down another thread again.
Ick. Ðámņëd slime… Gets into everything…
“Still, this was the era that birthed the Zombie Apocalypse Party, formerly The Association of People Who Don’t Understand the Concept of the Word Acronym (SPECTRE). You’ve gotta love and support a political party that designs a platform around guns, food, more guns, zombie killing, tire irons, swords, even more guns and extra planks of zombie killing.”
Tire irons? that’s weird.
“So, I’m not the only one who thought it looked so odd that they would check it out. I’m surprised he’s not doing his little ‘Tm’ thing with it already.”
Copyrighting his own phrases would make to much sense.
“Maybe a touch…but I can understand the points Gibson makes, even if I don’t agree with them. Mike…sometimes it seems like he’s not using English. At least not correctly.”
OK, just a touch, combined with other things.
I just have this image of white walls covered with articles that marked with red circles and arrows, and worn books, half open, with corner folded and random centences highlighted; maybe a few computer and TV screens, a police radio, notebooks full of random rambling, metal cabinets, tinfoil, the usual stuff. Of course it could only be my imagination.
Tire irons? that’s weird.
No, not at all. They are very effective weapons, almost indestructable, and also very useful for breaking into doors, busting windows, opening cans, just all sorts of useful post apocalyptic stuff. I say, give me a tire iron in one hand and a towel in the other and the world is my oyster!
Just be sure you don’t use the same tire iron for opening food cans that you use for splitting zombie skulls. Just one speck of brain bits in the pork and beans…
There’s no question that talk of tire irons will inflame certain posters’ suspicions…
Well, yeah… Bur only if they’re zombies or plan to be in the near future.
Who ever plans to be a zombie? Isn’t that like planing to work the drive thru after high school? Sure, I can see making plans to be a vampire, or a lich, or even a powerful phantasm, but a zombie? No, people don’t plan to be zombies. That’s just what happens to those folks that want to take over the world through evil powers, but just aren’t the Type A, goal-driven type.
Who ever plans to be a zombie? Bingo!!!! Thus, no one here has anything to worry about unless they plan to start working for the State of Virginia.
There’s a certain metaphor for life here…nobody plans to be a zombie. We all think we’re going to be vampires or chaos demons or mad scientists who unleash a horror yet undreamed of upon an unsuspecting world…but one day you wake up and it’s you, shambling through a field with a bunch of other putrefying corpses and you’d be thinking “Hey, wait, this has to be some terrible mistake.” but you can’t even form that sad thought in your liquefying brain…it’s all in Dr Phil’s latest book “The Really Ultimate Weight Solution”.
Dr Phil???
I thought that was Shaun of the Dead‘s opening credits.
Posted by: Micha at May 22, 2007 06:57 AM
Somebody who supports the death penalty and says he’s a good Christian cannot be considered a hypocrite for disobeying the 6th commandment. We’ve established that. Can he be considered a hypocrite for not practicing ‘love thy enemy,’ forgiveness and other good stuff like that? I do not know. There are so many kinds of Christianity.
At least give me Sean Hannity as a hypocrite. Remember how many Catholic churches across the country refused to grant Kerry, a Catholic, communion in 2004 when he was running for President? Allegedly because he was pro-choice, even though pro-life Republican Catholics have been granted communion. Anyway, back then Sean Hannity had this to say about Kerry:
“I choose to be a Catholic, but that’s the point. They set the rules. And if you don’t like them you can ask them to change it or you can go to another church.”
I got this quote from Al Franken’s “The Truth (with jokes)”, where Franken follows it with the following comment:
“Since Sean describes himself as ‘a big death penalty supporter,’ I can only assume he has left the Catholic Church for something a little more bloodthirsty.”
Because not only was Pope John Paul II anti-abortion, he was also anti-death penalty. I’d always guessed that his opposition to the death penalty was based on the commandment against killing, but perhaps I’m wrong.
But all this is just a game really. At the end we go past the attempt to stump Christians and onward to the real question: is capital punishment justified, and if not, why?
Good question. First of all, I believe people have the right to die even if they aren’t sick, so if you have a suicidal prisoner who’s on death row then I see no point in keeping them alive for months or years against their will instead of moving them to the front of the line for execution. Even if they aren’t on death row, if they want to die instead of serving out a life sentence then I think they should have that right. I gather it would be less taxing on the financial resources of a country than using taxpayer money to build more prisons to house them. (The one way I can think of that this might backfire is if some of the more unscrupulous guards decided to torment a prisoner they didn’t like until he himself asked to be killed. Or perhaps that the people in charge of running the prisons might decide to make conditions even more unbearable in order to make more prisoners suicidal enough to ask for death and thereby reduce overcrowding.)
Are there cases where it’s justifiable to put somebody to death against their will if that person does not present an immediate threat to anybody? I don’t know. I’ll have to ponder that one. One thing I am certain of is that if you’re going to kill somebody against their will, there had better be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty of the crime that has landed them on death row. You never know if new evidence will come to light that will exonerate them.
*sigh* Another post not sufficiently previewed. I meant “pro-choise Republican candidates have been granted communion,” not pro-life.
“Posted by: Bill mulligan at May 22, 2007 02:43 PM
Tire irons? that’s weird.
No, not at all. They are very effective weapons, almost indestructable, and also very useful for breaking into doors, busting windows, opening cans, just all sorts of useful post apocalyptic stuff. I say, give me a tire iron in one hand and a towel in the other and the world is my oyster!”
Actually, I was trying to be ironic. Of course I know why you need a tire iron to fight zombies. It’s common sense.
It seems to me that being a zombie could be something people would want to become. It’s easy life, no thinking, numbness, no pain, no problems, just brains. In the real world the only way to accomplish that is with drugs, alcohol, really bad TV, or holding on to brainless positions in internet arguments. Who wouldn’t want that.
And pro-choice Republican candidates as well. 🙂
At least give me Sean Hannity as a hypocrite. Remember how many Catholic churches across the country refused to grant Kerry, a Catholic, communion in 2004 when he was running for President? Allegedly because he was pro-choice, even though pro-life Republican Catholics have been granted communion. Anyway, back then Sean Hannity had this to say about Kerry: “I choose to be a Catholic, but that’s the point. They set the rules. And if you don’t like them you can ask them to change it or you can go to another church.”
That’s the dim thing with that debate. Most of the Conservative Mouthpieces in TV and radio were hammering on that point. I always thought that the argument was weaker then hëll. If they actually thought for two seconds rather then regurgitating their playbook, they’d have realized that they were advocating a theocratic government like they had back in the day of the Church and the Crown.
You can belong to a church that shares your beliefs, but you shouldn’t make law based on what the Pope or your local pastor says. You have to realize that other people of other faiths are part of the community in your care as well as those of your church. Ol’ Seany Boy seems to have that idea down pat when it comes to playing the fear card about even moderate Muslims or people who have Muslim patents getting elected to office in America
Besides, I noticed that he and the other self-described Catholics in the conservative media circles really cared about the Pope’s views when he spoke out against Bush’s war in Iraq. Really a strong man of conviction that Sean. Still, not as bad as O’Rielly calling the Pope senile, denying that he called the Pope senile and then labeling The Catholic League as a far left extremist group out to smear him. That was loads of laughs.
Rob Brown: “At least give me Sean Hannity as a hypocrite.”
My only familiarity with Hannity is from a documentary about Michael Moore appearing in a university in Nevada. He didn’t make a very good impression on me in this movie.
From what you say, he is definitely a hypocrite, not for supporting capital punishment but for expecting Kerry to leave the Church while not doing it himself. Either you believe you have a right to disagree with the religion you practice or not.
“Because not only was Pope John Paul II anti-abortion, he was also anti-death penalty. I’d always guessed that his opposition to the death penalty was based on the commandment against killing, but perhaps I’m wrong.”
Theological decisions like that are usually based on more than one sentence in the bible, especially in the catholic church. I suppose if you look on the net you will find the full reasoning behind the Church’s opposition to capital punishment. However I assume it is pretty recent, since I don’t think the Church opposed capital punishment in the past.
“Are there cases where it’s justifiable to put somebody to death against their will if that person does not present an immediate threat to anybody? I don’t know. I’ll have to ponder that one. One thing I am certain of is that if you’re going to kill somebody against their will, there had better be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty of the crime that has landed them on death row. You never know if new evidence will come to light that will exonerate them.”
You present here two different and good reasons to oppose capital punishment.
1) That to kill someone who does not pose a present or future threat (because he’s in prison) is unjustified just for the sake of punishment/revenge/deterance/supernatural or religious reasons. That’s a pretty strong argument. To refute that someone will have to show that to interest of punishment or dterance etc. justify killing someone who is not a threat.
2) That you shouldn’t execute someone unless there is absolute certainty of his guilt. This reasoning assumes that in principal it may be right use execution to punish a crime, but the parameters of cetainlty of guilt must be very strong. This is also a good argument.
Posted by: Micha at May 21, 2007 10:46 PM
Bill, I think it is time to take Jeffrey out of the penalty box, at least until further notice.
Micha, I realize you were speaking figuratively, but I think it’s nevertheless worth pointing out that there isn’t any official “penalty box,” and we are in no way obligated to come to a consensus about who we do or do not like. Jeffrey has a pattern of toning down the trolling for a bit every now and again, only to revert to type before long. From where I sit, Jeffrey’s recent posts therefore constitute nothing more than a temporary lull in his usual asinine behavior. You disagree. The solution? You can interact with him as much as you’d like, and I can do so as little as I’d like.
The Two Trolls, as usual, missed my point about “values judgments.” Of COURSE I’m making values judgments about trolls. Because trolling is a form of rude behavior.
But I make NO values judgments about the degree to which the rest of you choose to interact with those who are, in my opinion, trolls. I’ve merely stated that my preference now is to avoid such conversations to the extent that I feel I can, because they’re getting boring. The rest of you should do whatever you wish to do, within the few limits that Peter has set for his blog (which, to the best of my knowledge, consist of not insulting his family and not engaging in outright libel).
Bill Myers: As I haven’t sought your affection, I don’t care that you consider me a troll. Your impression of value judgments, though, does bother me. When you say you make no value judgments, that really, no matter what you think, does not mean that – of course, you make value judgments about THAT!! You are terribly interested in my history – Here’s what I think of yours: You say something that is unclear, are called on it, and retort by wondering why your detractor doesn’t intuit what you really meant (but were unable to express in English). Insistence on saying what you mean if you expect to be understood seems to you the worst kind of effrontery. If that’s Trollery, I am a Troll.
You really need to see the distinction between disagreement and hatred.
• 
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 21, 2007 12:50 PM
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me.
I’m with Jerry on this one.
The exchanges in this blog are increasingly becoming dominated by the personal agendas of people like Mike and Jeffrey Frawley. Rather than discussing and exchanging ideas, we’re dwelling on personalities with ever greater frequency. I believe this is happening at the expense of the more interesting conversations we could be having.
Let me be clear: I am not making any values judgments. If others of you enjoy engaging in discussions with and about trolls, then by all means do so. It’s neither morally wrong nor harmful.
I, however, have become thoroughly bored with discussions like this and will likely disengage until the conversations again come around to ideas instead of personalities. I understand that this isn’t my blog, and no one owes it to me to have the kinds of conversations I prefer. But that shouldn’t stop me from offering an opinion: I am far more interested in the thoughts most of you have about the world than the thoughts you have about Mike and Jeffrey. Most of you here are far more interesting to me than they’ll ever be.
Posted by: Patrick Calloway at May 21, 2007 05:25 PM
Actually, I had more in mind your continual usage of it’s suggestion as the ultimate insult, such as you just did in your attempt to provoke Jerry to respond to you. And in older characterizations of posters who are friendly to one another as being in a gay relationship in terms that made it clear you veiw it as the worst thing you could suggest.
Oh, Mike’s on that kick again?
Which of the Bills am I with this week? Or has he expanded his fantasy matches a bit? Never mind, I’m not curious enough to go find which of his posts it’s in and read it myself and will likely care less by the time anyone else tells me. Oh well.
Besides, let him spew that intolerance and hatred. It never bothered me before and it doesn’t now. I’m secure enough in the knowledge of my hetero-ness and I just can’t get myself to view being called gay as an insult because too many of the gay friends I have are pretty good people. If nothing else, it says a world about Mike’s own repressed bigotry and self doubts that he so often feels that others will feel the way he does when that label is tossed their way by him. Rather small, sad and pathetic really.
Review the bolded text: that qualifies as homophobia. As far as you’ve disqualified me as homophobic, thank you.
I’m not arbitrarily introducing words that illicit shame into the discussion — you are. And falsely attributing it to me as “the ultimate Mike sentence.” How does that not trump as creepy, loathsome, and ignorant simply disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality?
“Analogous to a conjugation table” was not included in any of the definitions of paradigm you provided, I never disagreed with the definitions of paradigm you provided, and nothing I’ve said depends on deviating from the definitions my application of the word qualify for.
What is the hardship in understanding your application of the word “troll” is a value judgment?
As far as such a hardship is not mine, my reasoning does not depend on the pretense of invulnerability. As your reasoning does, you are vulnerable to any reductio ad absurdum proving you wrong. What are you trying to accomplish, if not invite for yourself a death by a thousand paper cuts?
Aah, the men-watching-pørņ-without-women-and-together fantasy. I forgot about that one. Which seems natural, since I didn’t introduce it into the discussion it appeared in — Bill Myers did.
Well, good. So you won’t feel bad when your gay friends ask you when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room.
Mike, the reason you think that you have ‘corrected’ me by repeatedly posting the snippets you took from the article you posted and from the Summa Theologica, is because you are — repeat after me — an idiot.
All you have proven is your already established inability to process and comprehend texts as well as your lack of intellectual honesty to try to really learn anything, or actually research a subject that you do not understand, or to present your own ideas in a coherent and sincere way. Anybody on this thread who has read my postings and yours know that simply by reading what was written, so I have no need to prove it to them. And you are too stupid, and worse, too intellectualy dishonest to actually deal with my explanation no matter how much effort I put into it. Why? because you’re an idiot. You are just interested in selectively quoting and distorting the words of people, from Dante to the posters on this thread to PAD himself, so that they may fit the delusions that you harbor in your bizarre little mind. While at the same time, you are not really interested in presenting any substantial ideas of your own in a coherent and meaningful manner, but rather shift and alter them so as to evade the holes easily poked in them by the people on this board. So I see no reason to waste time conversing with you on this subject, or any subject for that matter, as if you were a normal person.
It is actually a shame, because the issues are worthy of a serious discussion, and underneath all your stupidity there are some ideas worth exploring. But you are incapable of articulating these ideas or processing the ideas of others in a way that would make real discussion possible. Why? Because you’re an idiot.
Moreover, the only person on this board who has a ‘predatory agenda’ (now that Robert Preston has left) is you. You are the only person who comes to this thread not to engage in serious discussion and conversation but to hammer everybody with your twisted ideas, while twisting and ignoring the ideas of others. Why? Because you are an idiot.
What a waste.
How do you reconcile the incompatibility of the words you present?
Bill Myers: “Let me be clear: I am not making any values judgments.”
No, Bill, you are making value judgments. Everyone who puts up any sort of argument about anything does. We only argue about two things: facts and values – 1. “Such and such thing happened.” “No! It did not!” and 2. “This is the right way to see this issue.” “You’re completely wrong. That’s no way to see it.” We can be abusive or not, but any discussion of opinions involves value judgment.
The important question is whether one is making sense. Let us disagree – respectfully or not – on which of us is doing that.
Review the bolded text: that qualifies as homophobia. As far as you’ve disqualified me as homophobic, thank you.
Uh huh. In my opinion, homophobia should be reserved for those poor folks who are genuinely unable to get over their own fear of gays. That’s what a phobia is, you see. Exploiting the homophobia that may or may not exist in others–which is what you do–is something else and, if anything, more repulsive than someone who can’t help themselves. So, your welcome…for what it’s worth. fear of gays is something that many a high school bigot has learned, with age and wisdom, to overcome. As opposed to having a rotten personality, which, at this point in your life, you are probably stuck with.
I’m not arbitrarily introducing words that illicit shame into the discussion — you are. And falsely attributing it to me as “the ultimate Mike sentence.” How does that not trump as creepy, loathsome, and ignorant simply disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality?
Oh yes, that’s what you were doing–introducing us to the fact that homosexuality exists! Because, we’ve somehow missed that. We’ve ignored all past discussions on the subject. We never read those posts from our gay members talking about their lives. Blissful ignorance, that’s what we had but you’ve opened our eyes.
Admit it Mike; you’d love to call people fágš, if you thought you could get away with it. So you do everything but use the word. Ain’t fooling anyone and it isn’t even working! That’s the funniest part–you toss out whatever credibility you might have left with the gay insults and it doesn’t even have the desired effect on the people you throw them at. It might have bugged people in 9th grade. We’ve grown up, Mike. Try it.
You won’t though. I think you discovered a long time ago that whatever genuine gifts you have it wasn’t enough to get the attention you want. 9 times out of 10, when you post a non-snarky point it doesn’t get much in the way of a response…so you go for the tried and true. Oh well, a man has to know his limitations.
No, Bill, you are making value judgments. Everyone who puts up any sort of argument about anything does. We only argue about two things: facts and values…
No, we debate and discuss 3 things here. The topics cover facts, value judgments/calls and opinions.
It was my opinion some time ago that Mike is not worth engaging in discussion. Even when he starts a day seemingly lucid, Mike swiftly goes down his tired and well worn route of troll (at best) or borderline mental subject (at worst) with only the slightest nudge. After so many threads, being called a Nazi, racist, predator, stalker, etc. just loses all of its comedic or entertainment value.
Bill Myers came to the same opinion. He expressed that opinion. I jokingly did the same above with the Star Wars quote. I’m not judging anyone here for how they spend their free time. Just looking at those who’ve been gumbed by the rabid attack poodle today… I respect Micha’s debates too much, Mulligan is a great source for obscure horror discussions and teacher POVs and others here are fun debaters as well.
Disagreeing on whether or not to engage in Mike Debates is the equivalent of TV watching. I can’t stand CSI: Miami in the least. Guys I work with love it. I think The Dresden Files is one of the best new shows of the season. Guys I work with either think I have weird taste in TV shows or have no idea what I’m talking about. Good books too. Not as good as The Garrett Files by Cook though. Different opinions. No real judgments on others.
Same here.
“I, however, have become thoroughly bored with discussions like this and will likely disengage until the conversations again come around to ideas instead of personalities.”
Mike creeps his head usually when a discussion has dwindled, and a new one has not yet started. I think even those of us who enjoy poking fun at Mike at our free time agree that other subject would be more interesting. I can only suggest bringing up other subjects worthy of discussion as soon as possible rather than wait until PAD posts a new thread. What about zombies?
Bill, I think it is time to take Jeffrey out of the penalty box, at least until further notice. Unlike Mike he seems to have taken responsibility to helping making the quality of discussions better by avoiding trollish behavior, and so should we.
Jeffrey, as far as I’m concerned, I am looking forward to conversing with you so long as our conversation does not devolve into a Mike-ish discussion. I don’t see any reason that that should happen regardless of some past mistakes on your or my part.
——————
Posted by: Mike at May 21, 2007 09:46 PM
“I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures….”
“Moreover, the only person on this board who has a ‘predatory agenda’ (now that Robert Preston has left) is you.”
“How do you reconcile the incompatibility of the words you present?”
If you attack me, or others here who I respect, with your snarky behabior, I will smack you down, but the attack was your predatory behavior not mine. I’d rather have a normal conversation with you, and have offered you the opportnuity more than once, but if you choose to engage in your snarky behavior, than my only alternatives are to smack you down or remain silent while you continue. Perhaps it would be more Ghandiesque of me to ignore you, but there are times when I choose to smack you down.
In the Imus thread you could have walked away with your pretend victory, as you could in the Dante discussion. But you prefered to strut around and brag. So you got smacked around.
You asked a seemingly serious question about biblical law. I gave you a serious reply, you response was snarky and inane — this was predatory beavior on your part, and you got smacked for it.
“I can’t stand CSI: Miami in the least.”
Me too.
Can’t stand that redhead guy, really can’t.
Let’s discuss this… quickly, before Mike comes back.
That would make homophobia a bigger tent than “thinking that calling someone gay is an insult,” now, doesn’t it? Thank you for letting me know I don’t qualify for that bigger tent.
So disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality is more repulsive than homophobia?
“Disregarding” and “introducing” don’t resembling anything approximating synonyms. I disregarded a taboo against admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality. You heard and relayed the word “fág” where no one said it previously.
I just asked Jerry if he realized everyone else was wondering when we’re going to give into our passions and finally rent the room. That doesn’t denote an appetite to use the word “fág.” I can’t disagree the arbitrary implementation of the word itself does.
As far as others here attempt to coerce through ridicule, and you’ve sunk to attempting to coerce by taking shame-hostages, employing reason to shelter the individual from coercion seems worthwhile. It’s a shame you consider the freedom from that coercion as trading down from the privileges of implementing it.
Jerry, as far as you seemed on the verge of posting contact information such as my address and phone number, I don’t need to be reminded portraying you as a stalker. When did I call you a nazi, a racist, or a predator? Hëll, remind me when I called anyone here a nazi, a racist, or a predator. My words, not someone’s post attributing words to me I never said.
What about zombies?
Anybody catch 28 Weeks Later yet? Is it as good as 28 Days Later was? Yeah, I know, but I’ve given up telling people that they’re not reaaaallllllyyyy zombies and joined the masses on this one.
Any truth to the rumor that Adrenalin Productions’ next zombie epic was supposed to be a spoof about a zombie getting elected President of the U.S., but the film project got canned when nobody could tell the difference between the mindless undead in the film and the current administration.
And am I the only one here who thinks that Cheney switched out the ‘a’ in his name just to throw everybody off for a while?
How about a topic that’s an offshoot of the threads topic?
Anybody else been following the story of the hospital visit by the White House to the former A.G. in an attempt to get him to sign off on some sleazy stuff while he was still wonked out on drugs? Could that tip the scales towards warranting impeachment (as much of a waste of time that would be now.) Any real meat there or just an empty sandwich?
Can’t stand that redhead guy, really can’t.
Actually, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Both his acting and the one lead female’s acting is just plain painful to watch. None of the CSI shows are the greatest things on TV, but the shows’ casts make them viewable. Hëll, “House” is only so-so when you look at the actual scripts. Hugh Laurie is dámņ near the sole thing that makes the show worth giving up the hour every week.
Jerry Chandler: I could argue that arguments about opinion almost inevitably shade into value judgment, but the distinction in our opinions (huge, big word) isn’t important enough to argue.
On the subject of one person threatening to release the personal information of another, I have no idea who has actually done what to whom. It is definitely a serious breach, no matter the provocations – well – almost. We could come up with extreme “To Catch a Predator” situations in which someone might feel justified, but in most cases it would be inexcusable.
Yes. I’m talking to you, Mr.____________@______.com!
Wait… what attack are you referring to? If the words are available, what’s stopping you from citing what I say when you accuse me of something?
The colossal bad taste of the White House visit to John Ashcroft’s hospital room says a lot about the Administration, but it’s far too little to give any prospect of a successful impeachment. While cruel and tasteless, it is unlikely to be illegal or prohibited by any enforceable standards. There have been enough Attorney Generals with bad ethics and limited legal skills in the last 40 years that I wouldn’t be prepared to swear Gonzalez is the worst of them. (Remember John Mitchell, who went to prison, and Ed Meese, who never let election funding and tax regulations get in the way of helping his friends out. His refrain of “I didn’t know I had to report that” sounded bad coming from the highest level of the Justice Department.)
(Heston voice) Ðámņ you!!!! You made me wade through a long, rambling and mind-numbing Mike post to figure out what the hëll you were talking about.
On the subject of one person threatening to release the personal information of another, I have no idea who has actually done what to whom.
No one’s ever done anything of the kind here. Had anyone done so, PAD would have banned or disemvoweled them long ago.
Mike was getting seriously deranged and loopy for several threads running. Several people were wondering whether he was merely a troll or truly a maladjusted individual. I pointed out that I thought I knew the answer to that and to who our Mike was. How did I come up with this bit of private, confidential and oh so secret information? Simple really. Mike used to link his website through his name in the same manner that Myers does now.
Mike issued a challenge to point out any quotes by him that lived up to his psycho rep or some such and I went into the archives to do some cut and pastes. There was the link leading to his website full of Mike-isms and bizarreness rivaling the most demented minds on record. He has his name plastered all over the site as well as links to other sites that he frequented. Any and every bit of “personal” and “private” information about Mike that any of us here might have “threatened” to “reveal” about Mike is information that he knowingly, willingly and intentionally gave us for years on this site.
And, no, he didn’t give the link by accident. Mike is a coder and a computer geek. He knew what he was doing when he did it. Oh. and the answer to the question raised was, after seeing Mike’s own words on his own site and others’ sites, was that he truly is a maladjusted individual and not merely just a troll.
Me- Exploiting the homophobia that may or may not exist in others–which is what you do–is something else and, if anything, more repulsive than someone who can’t help themselves.
The Idiot- So disregarding the taboo of admitting there’s such a thing as homosexuality is more repulsive than homophobia?
Thanks, Mike. If anyone ever needs a brief example of why you are regarded in such little esteem as you are, there’s a great snippet to cut and paste.
You haven’t been this off your nut since the last time you threatened to sic CNN on us (STILL the classic by which all other trolls will be measured by!)
Onto much better subjects:
Anybody catch 28 Weeks Later yet? Is it as good as 28 Days Later was? Yeah, I know, but I’ve given up telling people that they’re not reaaaallllllyyyy zombies and joined the masses on this one.
About time…if it shambles like a zombie and groans like a zombie, then by God, call it a zombie! Let’s not be slaves to semantics here…
Ok, 28 WEEKS LATER….SPOILERS SPOILERS Spoilers!
I liked it a lot but it just missed being great.
The basic concept was sound and the zombies/infected make a great and scary addition to the mythos. The speed by which they change is what makes it so frightening–the person who was your loved one just 10 seconds earlier suddenly becomes your killer. The scene where civilians are locked in a room and a single infected individual spreads the rage virus through them like wildfire is chilling (and the only scene where the now cliched Blair Witch shaky cam stuff works.
Problems–plot holes that really take you out of the picture. 2 kids can escape from an armed camp that is supposed to be virtually impregnable. The aforementioned locking in of civilians into a place where the zombies can get in and the newly infected can get out. The fact that the bridges and tunnels were not capable of being sealed. The terrible decision to have one zombie keep showing up over and over, like a bad slasher movie villain.
SPOILERS!!! The most interesting aspect is the politics. I’ve seen some folks try to say that it is a commentary on the Iraq war and that it portrays the US military in a bad light. Well, maybe, but has anyone commented on the fact that every single disastrous thing that happens is due not to military hardline attitudes but by the exact opposite? If there is a message to the movie it is a very bleak one: the values we treasure the most are allowable only because of our civilization. Strip that away and compassion and altruism only gets us and everything we care about destroyed.
It’s kind of a nod to the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD where we root for the hero and boo the cowardly dickweed only to realize upon reflection that every action the hero takes results in the death of the other characters and he survives only because he ultimately follows the plan of the aforementioned dickweed.
I’m stoked for 28 MONTHS LATER.
Any truth to the rumor that Adrenalin Productions’ next zombie epic was supposed to be a spoof about a zombie getting elected President of the U.S., but the film project got canned when nobody could tell the difference between the mindless undead in the film and the current administration.
No, it’s a zombie western (check out Christine Parker’s amazing website at http://www.fistfulofbrains.com-it's a bit slow right now but she’s doing some very cool things) but the script I’m working on has a very post-Katrina vibe to it. I hope it actually comes to pass, even though I will have to do an alarming amount of acting in it.
You haven’t been this off your nut since the last time you threatened to sic CNN on us…
Heh, HOW did I forget that little gem?
About time…if it shambles like a zombie and groans like a zombie, then by God, call it a zombie!
Bu… Bu… But they’re not reallydeadandtheycanbekilledbygunfiretoplacesotherthentheheadand…
No… Must contain urge… Cannot nit pick creatures… Must insert Fulci DVD into player…
It’s on my Tue./Wed. to do list. Thanks for the info.
Bill Myers: Rob, when you were asking about the distinction between “murder” and “the death penalty,” were you using “murder” in the context of the Sixth Commandment, or were you using the modern definition of “murder?” Or did you mean something else entirely?
Sorry I didn’t respond to this sooner.
As you recall, this began when I opined that anybody who claimed to be a good Christian and yet still supported the death penalty when the Bible says not to kill was a hypocrite.
Then I found out that it may actually be a commandment against committing murder, instead of any sort of killing of a human being (even when I thought it was just literally “Thou shalt not kill”, I thought it went without saying that this pertained only to humans. I don’t know why).
So when I found that out, I had to rethink my assessment of whether or not these individuals are indeed as hypocritical as I believed.
While thinking about that, I began to wonder if the death penalty can be considered murder. If so, then somebody who says they are a good Christian and continues to support it remains a hypocrite. When I say “murder” I’m using what I thought it meant as opposed to what the Bible may say it means or what any legal texts or dictionaries say it means.
In my view, a murder takes place whenever one human being intentionally takes the life of another one in a situation where they have not been provoked into action and their own life or well-being (as well as the lives or well-being of others around them) is not in danger from the soon-to-be deceased.
Also in my view, the crimes of the victim aren’t really a factor in determining whether or not they are being “murdered.” They may be a factor in determining whether the world will be a better place with them gone, but not in whether their death is a “murder” or not.
I mean, let’s say you have an organized crime figure who is responsible for a lot of death and suffering. If a rival mobster has him killed, that’s still murder. Sure, he’s guilty, but everybody here would consider that a murder, wouldn’t they? Also, I think everybody would agree that Jeffrey Dahmer’s death at the hands of a fellow inmate can be called “murder.” Dahmer was *extremely* guilty, but what happened to him was still murder.
It won’t surprise me one bit if I get replies to this ranging from “Yeah, sure” to “Are you a @$%^ing idiot?!”, but the killing of Dahmer may actually have been a case of somebody being killed for his crimes when it served no purpose. I know, I know, a lot of people have been put on death row for doing stuff that pales in comparison to Dahmer’s horrific crimes. But hear me out.
From all I know about him, Dahmer did what he did not because he wanted to but because of sexual urges he had difficulty controlling. He’d kill or rape somebody and enjoy it while he was doing it, and hate himself for it afterwards. Then the urges would come back and he’d find himself tempted to do the same thing again, and eventually he gave in to those urges once more.
After he was imprisoned, there were accounts that Dahmer had made progress in breaking that pattern and getting rid of those compulsions. It could, of course, have all been an act. But prisons are supposed to at least attempt to rehabilitate inmates, and this is a case where the man may have actually been rehabilitated.
I am not suggesting that he should have been placed back into society. There would have been too much of a risk that he’d revert to type, and if Dahmer was sincere about the change in himself during his final days then he likely would’ve agreed. Still, if what we have here is a guy who went from being a sick monster to being a decent person and THEN had somebody kill him as punishment for stuff he did while he was still a sick monster…that’s tragic. And I wonder how often the same thing happens with those executed by the state.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 21, 2007 11:27 PM
Micha: “Can’t stand that redhead guy, really can’t.
“Jerry: “Actually, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Both his acting and the one lead female’s acting is just plain painful to watch. None of the CSI shows are the greatest things on TV, but the shows’ casts make them viewable.”
I don’t know. The original CSI (which I like to call CSI classic) tends to show much more creativety in the writing, directing and acting departments. I think this is also one of thereasons that we care more about thecast of that show — they have been better written.
——————-
Rob: “While thinking about that, I began to wonder if the death penalty can be considered murder. If so, then somebody who says they are a good Christian and continues to support it remains a hypocrite. When I say “murder” I’m using what I thought it meant as opposed to what the Bible may say it means or what any legal texts or dictionaries say it means.”
Somebody who supports the death penalty and says he’s a good Christian cannot be considered a hypocrite for disobeying the 6th commandment. We’ve established that. Can he be considered a hypocrite for not practicing ‘love thy enemy,’ forgiveness and other good stuff like that? I do not know. There are so many kinds of Christianity.
But all this is just a game really. At the end we go past the attempt to stump Christians and onward to the real question: is capital punishment justified, and if not, why?
Mike: “a systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word” (#1) is analogous to a conjugation table. You seem to have quite a bit of trouble telling the difference between what other people say and what you think they are accusing you of saying. “I never said X.” No; You didn’t. I said X. The DSM-IV might have some suggestions of why this poses a problem.
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information.
If this is the incident that ignited your obsessive need to accuse me of things you can’t cite — well, why didn’t you just post the link I had already made available on this site, if that was your threat?
And Jerry provided quotes that led nowhere. That seems to be why he doesn’t even bother to refer to actual incidents when making accusations — they fall apart in comparison to the source posts.
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information.
If you don’t understand the threat of having your personal contact info revealed to a bunch of people who indulge in coercion by intimidation and the taking of shame-hostages, the nut is you.
I guess your answer to my question is a “yes.”
The posters here resort to coercion by ridicule and, in your and Jerry’s case, taking shame-hostages. Such coercion is a cousin to the low esteem that greeted Jackie Robinson, and I’m not sorry to have earned it.
Jeffrey, you are employing enough pronouns in your series of posts that I don’t see how you’ve explained my 9:21 pm reply did not apply to your post it was responding to. Please feel free recap if you need me to reply or rephrase something I’ve said.
Mike: If you don’t like the number of pronouns I use, there’s not much I can do to help you. I’ve made it 48 years so far, and might not be able to recreate myself in your image. In any case, the number of pronouns one uses has no relation to whether one has explained or responded to anything at all. In this case, you dismissed my reference to a conjugation table because you didn’t see the analogy with “systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word.” We must disagree there: I do see an analogy.
As far as bringing up Jackie Robinson goes, I didn’t know Jackie Robinson; I didn’t work with Jackie Robinson, but you, sir, are no Jackie Robinson! (Yes, that is a low blow, but I don’t feel repentant.)
So, you refuse to summarize your own criticism? Well, then why shouldn’t I feel free to arbitrarily summarize your position for you? — you’re wrong.
My reference to Jackie Robinson did not depend on my portraying myself as anything resembling him. The blow is low, but does not apply to me.
Mike, when speaking to people it is important to use a common language, not words and phrases one has developed to make sense of the world that are fairly unique to oneself. That is, if communication is your goal.
Which leads to the obvious question: What is your goal here, Mike? Not a threat or an attempt at coercion, or an implication that you should not be here, or anything else nefarious or hidden agenda-like. Just honest curiosity.
Yawn. So we can add “taking shame-hostages” to the list of Mikeisms. And–cool beans!–it’s a phrase that doesn’t even show up when you google it! So it’s an Original Mike, not just something he cribbed off of some sociology professor. Have you considered getting a copyright?
Bill Mulligan: If we join Mike’s fan club he may show mercy on our poor souls.
(I’m making a special effort to spell “Mulligan” correctly. Only Bill is permitted artistic license there.)
Okay, it’s been rolling around, but I think I’ve got it…Mike makes me think of some nightmare mix of Jeff Foxworthy, a little Yoda, and some Deep Blue crossed with HAL 9000 for the errant computer-like redundancy he uses.
How about the character Mel Gibson played in cospiracy theory combined with a little bit of real world mel Gibson?
Maybe a touch…but I can understand the points Gibson makes, even if I don’t agree with them. Mike…sometimes it seems like he’s not using English. At least not correctly.
And–cool beans!–it’s a phrase that doesn’t even show up when you google it!
So, I’m not the only one who thought it looked so odd that they would check it out. I’m surprised he’s not doing his little ‘Tm’ thing with it already. Not that anybody else would want it.
Sigh, I’ll make one and only one post directly to Mike. And I mean just this one. I won’t respond to any other post of yours, Mike. So have all the fun you want to have doing your usual out of context quoting thing. I present the following from a darker time just so that newer posters can in fact see that Mike is both nuts and a liar.
Still, this was the era that birthed the Zombie Apocalypse Party, formerly The Association of People Who Don’t Understand the Concept of the Word Acronym (SPECTRE). You’ve gotta love and support a political party that designs a platform around guns, food, more guns, zombie killing, tire irons, swords, even more guns and extra planks of zombie killing.
And I’m still waiting for the first paycheck due me for my office post.
~8?(`
***************************************************************************************************************
Posted by: Mike at May 22, 2007 08:36 AM
Yeah, I linked to my site, and Jerry persisted in intimidating me by threatening to reveal my identity rather than simply refer to the site I linked to. I cited the Michelle Malkin incident — and Jerry refused to clarify he didn’t mean revealing contact information.
If you don’t understand the threat of having your personal contact info revealed to a bunch of people who indulge in coercion by intimidation and the taking of shame-hostages, the nut is you.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Posted by Jerry C at November 11, 2006 09:57 PM
Micha, give up on reason with Mad Mikey. I know that you’re hoping his idiotness is an act and that he may drop it if you talk nice to him. He won’t because it’s not an act.
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.
I could be wrong. He could be a dimbulb 11 year old who is using the first name of another net troll or he could be the Mike I think he is. But most 11 year olds are actually brighter then the guy I’m thinking of so I think he would come off better then the real deal.
If it’s the Mike I think it is, then none of this is an act or an attempt to be troll-like. This guy really is this screwed in the head and has spent quite a few years crawling around the net showing proof of that. The 2 + 2 = 7 logic on display here is the norm for Mad Mikey and not merely something that he’s been doing just for us.
_________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.
Mad Mikey, does your definition of “intimidation” mean telling others that you are a known screwball with brain damage…
When the basis of you calling me a screwball with brain damage is you getting caught 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, it does.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
__________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Jerry C at November 11, 2006 11:44 PM
“…maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool.”
And Mike makes yet another leap off the cliff of sanity and into the abyss of his own dementia. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Bill… No, not you, Bill… I want Bill. Bill, can you hand me that thing? Yeah, that’s it. Thanks.
Mike, I now shroud you on this thread. You have gone over a new edge of insanity that even I didn’t think you could go over. Your dementia has reached new levels as yet unseen on this site. You may have the last word between us for this thread and then you may bug off for all I care.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Jerry C at November 15, 2006 10:24 PM
“Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 10:48 PM
I don’t think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry’s post:
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.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won’t be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.”
Now, you may ask yourselves what started this and how it can be viewed as crazy, demented or paranoid. Simple. Mike tends to post in lots of places ranging from his own blogspot to this one and a fair host of places in-between. This means that he has a history of comments elsewhere that some may have seen and that you can use to get a better idea of if he’s just yanking our chains or he really is nuts. I pointed out that I think I know who he is and that he really is just that goofy.
Not the first time that has been done here. Others have pointed out that random posters here are so and so from Byrne’s board or some other place. No one has ever reacted by being so dementedly paranoid that they declared that this expression of belief of identity was intimidation and race privilege.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Mike at November 22, 2006 09:40 AM
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.
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Jerry C at November 23, 2006 06:24 PM
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?
*********************************************************************************************************************
Never mentioned personal information. Made it very clear that I didn’t know you beyond web postings. Made it clear that I have no (see, ZERO) desire to be anywhere near you. Made it even more clear that I was talking about your online presence as what I knew about you and not anything you wanted to dream up.
Even better is the statement from your one post where you reference specifically the instance of websites and hate spam from the Malkin incident. You never mentioned peep one about fears of your home number, address or city of residence in any of your ramblings. You did mention your site, hate spam and the like. Just goes to further back the fact that you’re telling lies about the facts from then now or that you’re living in a dementedly dark reality of your own making and you actually believe the fantasy world you’ve constructed.
PSA for new posters over. You now know that Mike is insane and lies about what was and wasn’t said in regards to him and his posts. Now, excuse me please, I have to go shower. This little trip through Mike Memory Lane left me all covered in slime. Hopefully, I won’t live to regret this mistaken act of actually responding to the little twit.
Again: This isn’t an open invitation to debate, Mike. This is the ONLY POST HERE that I will make that directly responds to you in any way, shape or form. You may now spend the next two weeks ripping things out of context and endlessly spinning your wheels in an attempt to rework reality to suite your image of the world and have the last word. I will not assist you in shutting down another thread again.
Ick. Ðámņëd slime… Gets into everything…
“Still, this was the era that birthed the Zombie Apocalypse Party, formerly The Association of People Who Don’t Understand the Concept of the Word Acronym (SPECTRE). You’ve gotta love and support a political party that designs a platform around guns, food, more guns, zombie killing, tire irons, swords, even more guns and extra planks of zombie killing.”
Tire irons? that’s weird.
“So, I’m not the only one who thought it looked so odd that they would check it out. I’m surprised he’s not doing his little ‘Tm’ thing with it already.”
Copyrighting his own phrases would make to much sense.
“Maybe a touch…but I can understand the points Gibson makes, even if I don’t agree with them. Mike…sometimes it seems like he’s not using English. At least not correctly.”
OK, just a touch, combined with other things.
I just have this image of white walls covered with articles that marked with red circles and arrows, and worn books, half open, with corner folded and random centences highlighted; maybe a few computer and TV screens, a police radio, notebooks full of random rambling, metal cabinets, tinfoil, the usual stuff. Of course it could only be my imagination.
Tire irons? that’s weird.
No, not at all. They are very effective weapons, almost indestructable, and also very useful for breaking into doors, busting windows, opening cans, just all sorts of useful post apocalyptic stuff. I say, give me a tire iron in one hand and a towel in the other and the world is my oyster!
Just be sure you don’t use the same tire iron for opening food cans that you use for splitting zombie skulls. Just one speck of brain bits in the pork and beans…
There’s no question that talk of tire irons will inflame certain posters’ suspicions…
Well, yeah… Bur only if they’re zombies or plan to be in the near future.
Who ever plans to be a zombie? Isn’t that like planing to work the drive thru after high school? Sure, I can see making plans to be a vampire, or a lich, or even a powerful phantasm, but a zombie? No, people don’t plan to be zombies. That’s just what happens to those folks that want to take over the world through evil powers, but just aren’t the Type A, goal-driven type.
Who ever plans to be a zombie? Bingo!!!! Thus, no one here has anything to worry about unless they plan to start working for the State of Virginia.
There’s a certain metaphor for life here…nobody plans to be a zombie. We all think we’re going to be vampires or chaos demons or mad scientists who unleash a horror yet undreamed of upon an unsuspecting world…but one day you wake up and it’s you, shambling through a field with a bunch of other putrefying corpses and you’d be thinking “Hey, wait, this has to be some terrible mistake.” but you can’t even form that sad thought in your liquefying brain…it’s all in Dr Phil’s latest book “The Really Ultimate Weight Solution”.
Dr Phil???
I thought that was Shaun of the Dead‘s opening credits.
Posted by: Micha at May 22, 2007 06:57 AM
Somebody who supports the death penalty and says he’s a good Christian cannot be considered a hypocrite for disobeying the 6th commandment. We’ve established that. Can he be considered a hypocrite for not practicing ‘love thy enemy,’ forgiveness and other good stuff like that? I do not know. There are so many kinds of Christianity.
At least give me Sean Hannity as a hypocrite. Remember how many Catholic churches across the country refused to grant Kerry, a Catholic, communion in 2004 when he was running for President? Allegedly because he was pro-choice, even though pro-life Republican Catholics have been granted communion. Anyway, back then Sean Hannity had this to say about Kerry:
“I choose to be a Catholic, but that’s the point. They set the rules. And if you don’t like them you can ask them to change it or you can go to another church.”
I got this quote from Al Franken’s “The Truth (with jokes)”, where Franken follows it with the following comment:
“Since Sean describes himself as ‘a big death penalty supporter,’ I can only assume he has left the Catholic Church for something a little more bloodthirsty.”
Because not only was Pope John Paul II anti-abortion, he was also anti-death penalty. I’d always guessed that his opposition to the death penalty was based on the commandment against killing, but perhaps I’m wrong.
But all this is just a game really. At the end we go past the attempt to stump Christians and onward to the real question: is capital punishment justified, and if not, why?
Good question. First of all, I believe people have the right to die even if they aren’t sick, so if you have a suicidal prisoner who’s on death row then I see no point in keeping them alive for months or years against their will instead of moving them to the front of the line for execution. Even if they aren’t on death row, if they want to die instead of serving out a life sentence then I think they should have that right. I gather it would be less taxing on the financial resources of a country than using taxpayer money to build more prisons to house them. (The one way I can think of that this might backfire is if some of the more unscrupulous guards decided to torment a prisoner they didn’t like until he himself asked to be killed. Or perhaps that the people in charge of running the prisons might decide to make conditions even more unbearable in order to make more prisoners suicidal enough to ask for death and thereby reduce overcrowding.)
Are there cases where it’s justifiable to put somebody to death against their will if that person does not present an immediate threat to anybody? I don’t know. I’ll have to ponder that one. One thing I am certain of is that if you’re going to kill somebody against their will, there had better be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty of the crime that has landed them on death row. You never know if new evidence will come to light that will exonerate them.
*sigh* Another post not sufficiently previewed. I meant “pro-choise Republican candidates have been granted communion,” not pro-life.
“Posted by: Bill mulligan at May 22, 2007 02:43 PM
Tire irons? that’s weird.
No, not at all. They are very effective weapons, almost indestructable, and also very useful for breaking into doors, busting windows, opening cans, just all sorts of useful post apocalyptic stuff. I say, give me a tire iron in one hand and a towel in the other and the world is my oyster!”
Actually, I was trying to be ironic. Of course I know why you need a tire iron to fight zombies. It’s common sense.
It seems to me that being a zombie could be something people would want to become. It’s easy life, no thinking, numbness, no pain, no problems, just brains. In the real world the only way to accomplish that is with drugs, alcohol, really bad TV, or holding on to brainless positions in internet arguments. Who wouldn’t want that.
And pro-choice Republican candidates as well. 🙂
At least give me Sean Hannity as a hypocrite. Remember how many Catholic churches across the country refused to grant Kerry, a Catholic, communion in 2004 when he was running for President? Allegedly because he was pro-choice, even though pro-life Republican Catholics have been granted communion. Anyway, back then Sean Hannity had this to say about Kerry:
“I choose to be a Catholic, but that’s the point. They set the rules. And if you don’t like them you can ask them to change it or you can go to another church.”
That’s the dim thing with that debate. Most of the Conservative Mouthpieces in TV and radio were hammering on that point. I always thought that the argument was weaker then hëll. If they actually thought for two seconds rather then regurgitating their playbook, they’d have realized that they were advocating a theocratic government like they had back in the day of the Church and the Crown.
You can belong to a church that shares your beliefs, but you shouldn’t make law based on what the Pope or your local pastor says. You have to realize that other people of other faiths are part of the community in your care as well as those of your church. Ol’ Seany Boy seems to have that idea down pat when it comes to playing the fear card about even moderate Muslims or people who have Muslim patents getting elected to office in America
Besides, I noticed that he and the other self-described Catholics in the conservative media circles really cared about the Pope’s views when he spoke out against Bush’s war in Iraq. Really a strong man of conviction that Sean. Still, not as bad as O’Rielly calling the Pope senile, denying that he called the Pope senile and then labeling The Catholic League as a far left extremist group out to smear him. That was loads of laughs.
Rob Brown: “At least give me Sean Hannity as a hypocrite.”
My only familiarity with Hannity is from a documentary about Michael Moore appearing in a university in Nevada. He didn’t make a very good impression on me in this movie.
From what you say, he is definitely a hypocrite, not for supporting capital punishment but for expecting Kerry to leave the Church while not doing it himself. Either you believe you have a right to disagree with the religion you practice or not.
“Because not only was Pope John Paul II anti-abortion, he was also anti-death penalty. I’d always guessed that his opposition to the death penalty was based on the commandment against killing, but perhaps I’m wrong.”
Theological decisions like that are usually based on more than one sentence in the bible, especially in the catholic church. I suppose if you look on the net you will find the full reasoning behind the Church’s opposition to capital punishment. However I assume it is pretty recent, since I don’t think the Church opposed capital punishment in the past.
“Are there cases where it’s justifiable to put somebody to death against their will if that person does not present an immediate threat to anybody? I don’t know. I’ll have to ponder that one. One thing I am certain of is that if you’re going to kill somebody against their will, there had better be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are guilty of the crime that has landed them on death row. You never know if new evidence will come to light that will exonerate them.”
You present here two different and good reasons to oppose capital punishment.
1) That to kill someone who does not pose a present or future threat (because he’s in prison) is unjustified just for the sake of punishment/revenge/deterance/supernatural or religious reasons. That’s a pretty strong argument. To refute that someone will have to show that to interest of punishment or dterance etc. justify killing someone who is not a threat.
2) That you shouldn’t execute someone unless there is absolute certainty of his guilt. This reasoning assumes that in principal it may be right use execution to punish a crime, but the parameters of cetainlty of guilt must be very strong. This is also a good argument.
Posted by: Micha at May 21, 2007 10:46 PM
Bill, I think it is time to take Jeffrey out of the penalty box, at least until further notice.
Micha, I realize you were speaking figuratively, but I think it’s nevertheless worth pointing out that there isn’t any official “penalty box,” and we are in no way obligated to come to a consensus about who we do or do not like. Jeffrey has a pattern of toning down the trolling for a bit every now and again, only to revert to type before long. From where I sit, Jeffrey’s recent posts therefore constitute nothing more than a temporary lull in his usual asinine behavior. You disagree. The solution? You can interact with him as much as you’d like, and I can do so as little as I’d like.
The Two Trolls, as usual, missed my point about “values judgments.” Of COURSE I’m making values judgments about trolls. Because trolling is a form of rude behavior.
But I make NO values judgments about the degree to which the rest of you choose to interact with those who are, in my opinion, trolls. I’ve merely stated that my preference now is to avoid such conversations to the extent that I feel I can, because they’re getting boring. The rest of you should do whatever you wish to do, within the few limits that Peter has set for his blog (which, to the best of my knowledge, consist of not insulting his family and not engaging in outright libel).
Bill Myers: As I haven’t sought your affection, I don’t care that you consider me a troll. Your impression of value judgments, though, does bother me. When you say you make no value judgments, that really, no matter what you think, does not mean that – of course, you make value judgments about THAT!! You are terribly interested in my history – Here’s what I think of yours: You say something that is unclear, are called on it, and retort by wondering why your detractor doesn’t intuit what you really meant (but were unable to express in English). Insistence on saying what you mean if you expect to be understood seems to you the worst kind of effrontery. If that’s Trollery, I am a Troll.
You really need to see the distinction between disagreement and hatred.