The famed educational establishment is getting all sorts of heat since they’re inviting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus. Seems he had a hole in his schedule since he wasn’t going to be visiting Ground Zero. (No word yet on whether he’ll be permitted to go to Disneyland. And if you have to ask why I brought that up, you’re too young for me to explain it.)
Naturally the University is being hammered by people who want to see the invitation revoked, because they’re incensed that they’re being forced to come and listen to him express his viewpoints over…
Oh. Wait. That’s right. No one is forcing them to do so, any more than people who are repulsed by certain TV programs or radio shows have had the “off” buttons removed from their TVs and radios.
No, it seems that they are revolted by the very IDEA of the Iranian thug getting up on a stage at Columbia and denying the Holocaust ever existed.
Except…this is America. And at the core of what makes this country great is that, if we find an idea repulsive, we’re supposed to respond to it with more ideas, not the smothering of those ideas. He wants to claim the Holocaust didn’t happen? Fantastic. Have him do so, and then confront him with survivors of concentration camps, or soldiers who were there when the camps were liberated. Let him call each and every individual a liar to their face, if he can.
But who knows what the long-term result could be? There’s no such thing as an instant life-transforming epiphany. Even when it seems that’s what’s happened, odds are that the groundwork was laid for it over the course of years. Someone like the Iranian president (which is easier to type than his name) isn’t going to instantly realize he’s wrong, but perhaps the seeds of doubt can be planted, in him or in other deniers. It’s worth a shot. The dissemination of ideas is ALWAYS worth a shot.
In point of fact, he probably should have been allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero. And he should have been met there by an assemblage of family members of victims, standing there with photos of their loved ones staring accusingly, putting a human face on the terrorism that he purportedly supports.
Perhaps he won’t care. Chances are he won’t. But again, you never know. The man, for all his bluster, for all his vituperation, for all his wrongheadedness, clearly has a fascination with this country, almost as if he’s seeking our approval and has absolutely no comprehension how to go about it.
We speak wistfully of world peace. Of everyone getting along. But many people are reluctant to fully get behind the first step to such a goal, which is to understand the views of those in opposition to them. I’m not saying “agree with” or “condone.” I’m saying “understand.” Understanding why people believe what they believe, and–if you disagree with them–doing your dámņëdëšŧ to make them understand YOUR point of view. Understanding one’s enemy on human terms is the only real path to peace, which should be self-evident since thus far dehumanizing the enemy or trying to bomb him into oblivion hasn’t gotten the job done.
The song says, “Give peace a chance.” Won’t ever happen if speech is smothered.
PAD
• 
Yes, of course. But does the sugar and spice go into Mike’s posts?
As “we” deny, “we” demonstrate.
Typo.
Nice relapse, Bill.
Just can’t take the man at his word, can we?
Posted by Mike at February 26, 2007 12:25 AM
I have good news for the “Victims of Mike Club.” I’ve gotten what I’ve been looking for here, paradigms for the motives of the people here that have been baffling me. The price for these paradigms has been my time and, as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.
How does that last bit go again?
… as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.
That was such a wonderful post. It filled so many with hope and joy. And yet, as of September 29, 2007 09:58 PM, he’s still here. And he’s actually here quite a bit. Obviously the man’s a chronic and habitual fabricator as well as more then a little mentally unbalanced.
And we all know that you can’t take the word of a chronic and habitual fabricator or a mentally unhinged individual.
That being the case…
Mike, if you can’t be taken at your word, what are you doing here?
Oh, I remember.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2005 10:02 PM
But if you’re going to be a troll, you have to do it well, like I said in the other thread. Deny it if you want, but there’s no kidding anyone we both know it can be great fun. However, if you just throw out a big hunk of text and people don’t understand you — you may as well have kept your point to yourself.
Trolling.
But here’s a net oriented question in the vein of trying to figure out real world threats VS real world overblown hype.
At this point, can Mike truly be called a troll? Or is Mike simply being called a troll when he is in fact so much less even then that?
He has no power to sway opinions.
He cannot effectively irritate or infuriate others here as we have all learned that the limitations of Mad Mikey are many in number and colossal in scale.
He can easily be baited and poked rather then being the one who baits and pokes others. Oh, he may fancy himself as the master, the “real deal” as he likes to praise himself, of the games here, but he’s far from it. He’s become the site’s penny store wind-up toy. Any time someone is feeling a little bored, they can easily twist Mad Mikey’s key and then sit back and watch him as he, as reliably as the sun coming up, runs repeatedly face first into the wall. And you can do it as many times as you want. He’s powerless.
No, he may fancy himself a master troll and believe himself “the real deal” of internet trolls, but he’s fallen, as he’s likely done with so much else in his life, terribly short of his tiny little goals and dreams. Troll is a name that no longer fits our Mad Mikey. Hëll, Troll might even be too good, by several steps up, for him. He needs a new title here.
Dung Beetle? He crawls around, at least metaphorically, in his own crap and believes it something wondrous. Seems an almost perfect fit.
I don’t know. And it’s late and I want to go to bed. Maybe someone else can come up with something more accurate and we can all vote on it later.
Jerry, do you require instruction on the use of prepositional phrases? I was simply addressing the “Victim of Mike’s” theme.
The relevence of my 28-month-old post seems to be… your post-traumatic stress disorder. That isn’t my problem.
No, only when you think about booty.
So you really think that when we think of the word “ášš” you immediately come to mind? Well…I literally cannot disqualify that statement.
my 28-month-old post
You say that as though the age means something. Do you now wish to disavow your previous statement? Do you now believe that being a troll is not great fun?
Jerry,
You have obviously not been paying attention–Mike is no longer playing the “I’ve gotten what I’ve been looking for here, paradigms…” card. Now he’s claiming to be a koan head, filling the blog with his art, the sophistication of which we are simply unable to appreciate. But historians of the future will, of that there is no doubt!
When someone claims their idiocy is some kind of performance art you know that the well is running dry.
Do you want to tell me what you’re wearing, Bill?
He’s using that post as his justification for making this his first post here:
…without referring to anything I said in the last 28 months. Yes, Jerry’s arbitrariness means something.
Why should I regret a 28-month-old comment posted under the privilege Peter provides for everyone, when it hasn’t been demonstrated it has any relevance to this thread other than Jerry using it to vent his disgust on me?
So Buddhists are “koan heads?” Koans are a reason for you to ridicule and discredit a faith? What do you call Christians other than “Sir?”
“Why should I regret a 28-month-old comment”
So you are not denying that you’re a troll, and that your agenda in this board is to be a troll?
Do you want to tell me what you’re wearing, Bill?
Never occurred to me. Medical scrubs, if that gives you any kind of thrill.
So Buddhists are “koan heads?” Koans are a reason for you to ridicule and discredit a faith? What do you call Christians other than “Sir?”
No, Mike, the “koan head” reference was, as even the dullest reader would have doped out, strictly directed at little old you. (Note- It’s an expression: you are not literally “little” nor “old”. You are still, unfortunately, you.) The fact that you would portray yourself as the living embodiment of Buddhists is so telling. If one wanted to be a bigot and insult Buddhists there could scarcely be a more loathsome libel than to use you as a representative of their religion. Hiding your contemptible posts behind the laughable claim that they are Buddhist koans…really, Mike, is there no depth to which you won’t stoop?
I’m not going to deny anyone’s account of their own experience, but I’ve formally demonstrated in this thread my intent is wholely untrollish, without any denial of that account referring to anything I’ve said. That was the case, from perhaps from 28 months ago, until Peter shut down the thread last Thanksgiving weekend because you, the Bills, et al, decided to punish me for trying to get a cop who was venting disgust on me to rule out he was going to post my personal contact info. I formally declared an end to my curiosity as to the motives of the Thanksgiving disgust-fest on 26 Feb.
You didn’t call me a “koan head.” Instead you demonstrated you were looking for grounds to dismiss my “claim.”
And how are the diminutive and the aged supposed to take there status relative to the general population employed as ridicule? You go Bill. Tell that áššhølë he’s like me.
Since we’re suddenly demonstrating a fidelity to Fact,™ you appear to need to be informed of the Fact™ that Buddhism has no messiah, I am the living embodiment of Buddhism, and so are you.
“I’ve formally demonstrated in this thread my intent is wholely untrollish”
No you haven’t.
Your actions speak for themselves.
“That was the case, from perhaps from 28 months ago”
So 28 months ago you were trying to be a troll?
“you, the Bills, et al, decided to punish me”
we were not punishing you, since we don’t have the ability to do so, only PAD has. We did voice our disgust with you because you have taken a very serious subject and treated it like garbage to serve no purpose but your own desire to endulge in trolling and vanity. We did allow ourselves to be overcome by our disgust, a fact which we truely regret.
“I formally declared an end to my curiosity as to the motives of the Thanksgiving disgust-fest on 26 Feb.”
You also declared your intention to reduce your appearances om this board. This is evidently untrue.
“You’ve all more-or-less demonstrated you don’t know what a koan is:
a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment”
can you truely claim that your posts on this or any thread has caused either you or anybody else to achieve ‘intuitive enlightenment’?
How does to goal abandoning ‘ultimate dependence on reason’ not contradict your own claim to be distilling reason to purity?
Or are you admiting that your posts on this blog are contrary to reason if taken at face value? Are they only valuable if they are read not literaly but in order to reveal a hidden philosophal truth that goes beyond their literary meaning?
If so, what is that truth, and can you actually claim you have revealed it to us or to yourself?
If you haven’t, than what is the purpose of your posts, other than trolling?
“And how are the diminutive and the aged supposed to take there status relative to the general population employed as ridicule?”
It should be noted that when we call you:
Short of understanding,
of little consequence,
a mental midget,
an intellectual dwarf,
a cerebral hobbit,
with a gigantic ego,
an inflated sense of self,
whose posts are tall tales
and fat lies
thin with actual content
and in general the work of a mad man,
and that your increasingly becoming old and tired
we have no intention to offend short people, tall people, fat people, thin people, the mentally ill, the old, and the chonically fatigued.
I must also say that as a diabetic I am offended by your posts on the subject.
Yeah, we definitely need a new title for ol’ Mad Mikey. He’s gone so far beyond and below what a troll is.
E-Putz?
Bizarro Boy?
Bill O’Reilly? (Believe it or not, he’s become Bill-O’s clone on just about everything other then political POV and I can’t really think of anything lower then Bill O’Reilly without heading into Coulter territory. And Mike ain’t quite that psychotically nuts yet.)
In Dragonlance they had Gully Dwarves, if I remember the name correctly. They were silly, often mean people living in filth and having an inflated sense of self.
Gully Dwarf is good. Anybody else?
You didn’t call me a “koan head.” Instead you demonstrated you were looking for grounds to dismiss my “claim.”
Nope. I called you a “koan head”. A play on cone head ie pin head ie . If I deserve criticisms it’s in bringing microcephalics into your realm of strangeness since they, unlike you, have no choice.
Trying to make it an insult to Buddhists is typical of your cowardice but unlikely to impress anyone here or those future historians you think you will impress. (Though you will impress them, Mikey Boy, though not for the reasons you imagine.)
And how are the diminutive and the aged supposed to take there status relative to the general population employed as ridicule? You go Bill. Tell that áššhølë he’s like me.
He would have to be one hëll of an áššhølë.
Actually, the phrase “little old” has no ridicule usage when employed that way–it’s a fairly common expression. Why I even seem to recall Bugs Bunny using it. See, Mike, when someone says “little old you” or “little old me” they are not mocking the aged or diminutive. And only someone with a serious chip on their shoulder and/or serious mental problems…or both…like you…would think otherwise. And only a real assclown would dare print that foolishness for all to see.
I am the living embodiment of Buddhism, and so are you.
I see. So your attacks on me are attacks on Buddhism? Well, I’m not going to stand here and listen to some bigot attack one of the worlds great religions! Good day to you sir! Good day I say!
Which you’ve demonstrated you can’t find an example of.
No, but “perhaps” allows others’ account of their own experience to the contrary.
Thank you for contradicting your denial by confirming my observation.
That isn’t what you were saying when that thread that was shut down. You all were venting disgust on me for attempting to do the right thing when someone venting disgust on you refuses to rule out posting your contact info — you counter-threaten to open access to his threat to isolate you, like shouting “fire” to draw attention to someone menacing you on the street.
Do you also require instruction on the use of prepositional phrases?
As far as your venting of disgust does not erode my enjoyment in participating this thread: me. Its virtue is in how I shelter the enjoyment of simple pleasure Jerry hasn’t denied he is challenged in enjoying.
I never claimed the reason I was distilling could be all things to anyone.
If by “truth” you are referring to the reason I was distilling here, as I said before: As far as your venting of disgust does not erode my enjoyment in participating this thread: me. Its virtue is in how I shelter the enjoyment of simple pleasure Jerry hasn’t denied he is challenged in enjoying.
So if you don’t intent something, it can’t happen?
If your offense is based on denying mention of diabetes’s symptoms, I don’t care.
Why do you guys bother with Mike? I mean, honest to God…why? Half the time I don’t know what he’s talking about, and the other half the time it’s not worth investing the effort to reply.
You must know the old saying: Never wrestle with pigs, because you just wind up dirty and the pig enjoys it.
It just seems a pointless way to spend one’s time, is all I’m saying.
PAD
Saying I’m claiming to be a “koan head” isn’t calling me one any more than saying Al Gore claimed to have won the 2000 election is admitting he won it. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
Others portraying our distinguishing characteristics as ridicule is more acceptable the more severe the offense intended? Spoken like someone soft on his own privilege.
…he says without referring to anything I’ve said.
Reading this thread, I’ve realized that something happened to this blog when Mike returned. It has increasingly become a blog about Mike. And that we have reached — or are reaching — a crescendo of Mike-centric blather.
When I first began posting in this blog, it was a great place not only to express my thoughts but also to have my thinking provoked in new and novel ways. The discussions were spirited, sometimes heated, but they were largely civil and always worthwhile. In fact, in some cases they moved me to vote differently, to actively fight for a cause, or to try and change myself in some way.
Now it seems like we spend an ever-increasing amount of time and energy discussing Mike. Mike this and Mike that and MikeMikeMikeMikeMike. And what are we accomplishing? I mean, anyone with half a brain can see that Mike is a total šhìŧ! We don’t have to carry that torch — Mike does a great job of making himself look bad. And we’re certainly not going to shame Mike. He has demonstrated that he has absolutely no shame whatsoever.
The only thing — the ONLY thing — we are accomplishing is to give Mike what he wants: attention. He’s manipulating some of us like a puppeteer manipulating a marionette! Look at what this thread has become! It started as an interesting thread about the aftermath of Ahmadinejad’s speech at CU, but has degenerated into another discussion about Mike. You’d think Mike was the most interesting thing in the world to us, the way we spend so much time and energy on him.
If I can’t appeal to your own sense of dignity, perhaps I can appeal to your sense of social responsibility. The more we talk to or about Mike, the more he posts. And the more he posts, the less interesting, informative, and worthwhile these discussions become.
This is Peter David’s blog, but he gives us wide latitude to say virtually anything we want. I mean, my God, if you don’t insult his family or commit libel then just about anything goes! That means that largely we’re responsible for the quality of the conversations here. And I think it’s high time we began reclaiming what we had before Mike came along.
You’ll note of late that I have largely avoided addressing Mike directly. The last time I responded to one of his posts I simply corrected a misstatement he made, but I did so without engaging him in conversation.
I’m urging the rest of you to adopt a similar “policy” towards Mike. Because frankly, I’m finding that the conversations here are becoming less and less worthwhile. It’s getting to a point where I’ve questioned whether it’s worth my time to participate anymore. And yes, I’m aware that if I “pick up my ball and go home,” this blog will go on without me as it did long before I came here. Shìŧ, some of you may celebrate my departure. But I also doubt I’m alone in feeling this way about what all of this Mike-centered nonsense is doing to the blog. And it would be a real shame if we allowed Mike to ruin what has been a gem in a vast ocean of Internet nonsense.
To paraphrase Alan Moore: when you step in šhìŧ, you don’t jump up and down on it to punish it. You step out of it, clean up your shoes, and go on with your day.
Final word on the subject: I don’t consider the possibility of me withdrawing my participation to be any kind of a threat. As I said, the blog got along just fine without me before I found it, and would get along just fine without me if I left. My choices are my choices, and yours are yours. But I felt compelled to at least let you know my thoughts. Do with them — or not — as you wish.
So…
“The price for these paradigms has been my time and, as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.”
… equals…
“I formally declared an end to my curiosity as to the motives of the Thanksgiving disgust-fest on 26 Feb.”
… in Mike speak? Saying that you’ll visit upon a group of people your bizzaroness less and less or not at all is actually saying that you’ve decided that you will no longer discuss your curiosity on just one specific point. Yet more proof that no one can understand whatever bizarre points you’re always trying to make because you have absolutely no grasp of/understanding of/command of the English language or how to structure a proper point. Or it’s just more proof that when confronted with a Mike Lied Post™, you just switch gears and lie about your original intent.
Yeah, that’s much better.
Gully Dwarf.
+
Looking at The Mad One’s post from 12:24 PM today, you just know that one day The Mad One is just going to copy and paste an entire thread for one of his posts and the weight of it all combined with the added weight of the odiferous Mikeness that he will add will cause the entire blog to implode in upon itself. All that will be left is a tiny internet black hole that absorbs all logic and common sense, crushes it under the incredible weight of its own sense of self importance and then randomly flushes the mangled and twisted remains of now total incoherence back out into the world to plague whatever blog it fixates on at the time. Kinda like The Mad One himself, just on a larger scale and without his desperate need to have attention focused on him in any sort of way.
“To paraphrase Alan Moore: when you step in šhìŧ, you don’t jump up and down on it to punish it. You step out of it, clean up your shoes, and go on with your day.”
Ok, fine. We can always cut back on the whack a Gully Dwarf sessions. Still, I think this stems more from a lack of new thread topics then it does from Mike’s level of interestingness. The discussion of Ahmadinejad’s speech at CU had kind of run its course once the discussion moved to the inevitable point of realizing that there are no easy answers to dealing with him or the situation as a whole. Mulligan has failed to throw out any references to the final days filming on Fist Full of Brains, no bad shows on TV to rubbish, etc.
Still, What about O’Reilly’s latest blunder?
“You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he’s made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia’s, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
And I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that’s really what this society’s all about now here in the U.S.A. There’s no difference. There’s no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment — people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you’re gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody’s skin.”
“That’s right. That’s right. There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.“
You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.“
“You know, and I went to the concert by Anita Baker at Radio City Music Hall, and the crowd was 50/50, black/white, and the blacks were well-dressed. And she came out — Anita Baker came out on the stage and said, “Look, this is a show for the family. We’re not gonna have any profanity here. We’re not gonna do any rapping here.” The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn’t know, particularly people who don’t have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.“
Racist? Not Racist? Unintentionally racist by the fact that O’Reilly is so utterly clueless that he can’t figure out that saying that he can’t get over the fact that blacks can be civil, upscale and well behaved is insulting as it assumes that he, and by his words, others, simply assume that all blacks are crass, misbehaving, foul mouthed scumbags?
Will this have an Imus level of impact on his career? Just a little? None at all?
What about the silence from Capitol Hill and the Republicans, after losing their tiny little minds at Moveon.org’s add without actually addressing a single point it raised, towards ol’ Oxycontin Boy saying that any soldier who was for withdrawal, i.e. any soldier who disagrees with Bush, is a phony soldier?
“
LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.
LIMBAUGH: You bet.
CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull — what these people don’t understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it’d take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so. And —
LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what —
LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.”
So, all the soldiers who have come back and said it’s a wasted effort, all the Generals who have disagreed with Bush and been brushed aside, all the military experts who once served themselves who feel that this is a failing effort… They’re all fake soldiers. But a man who ducked the draft and has given multiple lies about why he didn’t serve before settling on a final story who supports a madman who also ducked military service… They’re great Americans.
Or how about…
Anybody rented Flight of the Living Dead yet? I’ve heard that it’s actually not as bad as it looks and actually better then the film it was meant to cash in on (Snakes on a Plane) was by a long shot. Just wondering. I’m horribly short on cash this week (unexpected baby bills ~8?(` and all the usual 1st of the month stuff) and really have to eye my 99cent rentals with a little more scrutiny. The $3.00 ones even more so.
I never claimed the reason I was distilling could be all things to anyone.
No but you did claim to be distilling them to a heretofore unknown purity. When challenged though, you never did come up with an example of said reason. We’ve been chuckling about that one ever since you said it.
So if you don’t intent something, it can’t happen?
Before you go off instructing people on the use of prepositional phrases you might just look up the difference s between intent and intend
Why do you guys bother with Mike? I mean, honest to God…why? Half the time I don’t know what he’s talking about, and the other half the time it’s not worth investing the effort to reply.
You must know the old saying: Never wrestle with pigs, because you just wind up dirty and the pig enjoys it.
It just seems a pointless way to spend one’s time, is all I’m saying.
I know, I know. Your the better man, PAD. But look…some people drink, Some smoke. Some gamble. Some are unfaithful to our wives. Whacking a stick against the cages that surrounds Mike’s mind and watching him growl impotently, especially at the end of the month when his prescriptions run out (seriously, anyone who wants to do a good stats project could create a graph of craziness vs days of the month, just to examine his cycles) is in no way shape or form anything to be proud of. But it’s a relatively harmless vice. If I thought his feelings would be hurt or that he actually is in any danger of showing up at a daycare with an AK 47 I’d stop. But he’s just a bully. A sadly ineffectual one, but we can’t be in high school forever. Some of them grow up to be abusive husbands and fathers. Some actually grow up and are genuinely sorry about what thugs they were as kids. Some…become Mikes.
BUT, that said…
In my new role as the living embodiment of Buddhism I feel a new sense of responsibility, nay, a duty to become a better person and to help others do the same. As Mike performs no function save to make any topic about himself and we encourage his obsession with his sense of self, we are preventing Mike from grasping the Buddhist teaching of anatta. So long as he remains in his current state he will never be free of suffering and will, as we have seen, attempt to bring suffering to others. We cannot be certain that he is not in fact doing so; his inability to be effective in this forum may not extend to more vulnerable people in his daily life.
So I think that Bill Myers has expressed it correctly. While Mike alone is responsible for being the person that he is, I take full responsibility for being one of the people most to blame for making him into what he has become here on the blog.
This leaves me with a bit of a conundrum. Obviously, I can simply promise to ignore everything and anything Mike says…but Mike being Mike, he would probably take that as a challenge. Since he either has no idea how decent people think or he does and deliberately uses that for his own weird goals, you can bet that he would try everything in the book to get me to break that promise –just when you think he’s reached bottom he pulls out a shovel. It’s also not in my nature to ignore bullies and it’s just a matter of time–minutes, most likely–before Mike goes after someone entirely undeserving of his nuttiness.
So…it seems to me that Bill Myers has the best idea. There’s no point is engaging Mike personally, except as an exercise in insulting someone without the wit to respond in a way that doesn’t make him look even worse. I’ll correct his errors of fact, assuming there’s any chance someone might not realize that every word he says needs to be fact checked. If a newby wonders why we let some particular craziness go by without comment I may just let them know that previous experience has led us to consider him not worth responding to.
Other than that, I consider Mike a closed subject. That last word goes to you, Mike. You could play it smart and say nothing, looking like a better person than you really are…ah, but I just ruined that chance, didn’t I? Now you HAVE to reply. My parting gift, for all you’ve done.
Bill, it is important to note that Mike has no effect whatsoever on the quality of the discussions on this blog (not for lack of trying).
Every thread that involved a serious and interesting subject, be it Imus or Ahmadinajad or Iraq or anything else, usually included an engaging and spirited discussion by intersting people presenting interesting points of view despite Mike’s posts. Mike’s posts only start to dominate a thread when its original subject has already been covered, and nobody has anything new to add but before a new subject has presented itself. At times like this the focus of a thread often shifts to general, often humorous, chit chat(zomibies anybody), or to a Mike-discussion, while we wait for the next thing to come along.
Is it pointless? Sure. We could go to other blogs, read a good book, watch TV or whatever. We could also try to move this thread to another subject (like Jerry is trying now) and hope that it catches on. But what’s wrong with some pointless entertainment so long as you know it is pointless? Mike is not going anywhere. The quality of the discussion is not affected, since the real discussion has already concluded. The only harm that comes to us of the exchange is that we’re doing something silly and pointless rather than productive — which is often the case regardless of Mike. and again, what’s wrong with a little pointlessness? Honestly, I enjoy the break from Ahmadinijad and other serious subjects. It does not prevent us from continuing on other both serious and humorous tracks the minute they present themselves. In fact, I’m certain that Mike will be forgotten the minute such a subject presents itself. So why worry?
Mulligan has failed to throw out any references to the final days filming on Fist Full of Brains
Final days??? We’ve only just begun! Our films are of such high quality that literally an entire year goes into shooting them! THAT’S how dedicated we are to presenting you, the viewer, with the very best in quality zombie entertainment!
Also, we can only shoot on weekends. Mostly Saturdays. Mostly Saturday nights. Mostly Saturday nights that aren’t in October, June, July and August.
But the greater point is: you can’t rush quality!!!
(And I offer the open opportunity to anyone who has ever wanted to act in a horror movie and/or do makeup for a horror movie–please come and act and/or do makeup in our movie. Thank you. I promise you a very messy kill that will make you the envy of all your friends and family. “That’s some pretty f***ed up sh*t right there.” Grandma will say.)
Speaking of politics–forget Bill O’Rielly’s backhanded compliments. How about John Edwards saying that “We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”
So…John Edwards thinks that all young black men are either A- criminals that would be in jail if there were enough space to hold them all or B- victims, possibly of A. Wow. They really need to let Elizabeth do all the talking.
Unless he was going for the racist vote, in which case that may have been a campaign promise.
Can you cite anything I’ve said that justifies you calling anyone a šhìŧ?
Can you cite anything I’ve said that renders my own acount of my motives implausible?
I was asked
so I answered the first and disregarded what I took as a question depending on my failure to reply to the first.
If you’re issuing such a challenge as you describe, I’ll defend anything in this thread I’ve said you care to justify the venting of disgust on me. No one can cite such a quote by me, so you’ll have to pick one.
Before you give instruction on hypocrisy, you might want to consider the difference between catching a typo where no typo was criticized, and establishing your own hypocrisy simply by presenting “s between” as English.
Consider the prospect of the disgust dumped on me issued in the service of the Tyranny, Cowardice, and Smug Self-Indulgence™ of political correct (you will have to let me know whether the disgust vented on me here exceeds that of political correctness, or if you can demonstrate how your own disgust dilutes the disgust of political correctness you refer to):
What replies could you provide to shelter your enjoyment of simple pleasure against the disgust of a political correctness you portray as tyrannical, cowardly, and smugly self-indulgent better than mine here? (Again, you’ll have to let me know whether the disgust vented on me here exceeds that of political correctness, or demonstrate how employing your own disgust dilutes the disgust of political correctness you refer to.)
Yow.
John Edwards is so screwed if they can make that statement a point in public debate.
Sheesh.
I think John Edwards demonstrated he’s lost hope himself a couple of weeks ago when he endorsed Hillary’s healthcare plan as a copy of his own. He’ll try to distinguish himself by the lobbying dollars she’s taken, but the Clintons do have a history of selectively disregarding their supporters — so her resolve to carry out her plan will be nurtured by her desire to win 2 terms. Karl Rove could recover the primary in Edwards’s situation, but he ain’t making himself available to fix that.
I think I’ve figured out a way to make Mike a positive force for goo–for every really nutty post from Mike Leung I’ll post a review of a zombie movie!
It has to be a good post though–not just a cut ‘n paste job or one sentence snark.
(of course, if you dislike both Mike’s posts AND zombie movies you are pretty much SOL)
And we start with the letter A. A is for…
Anthropophagus!
Yeah, that’s mouthful. It’s better known to USA audiences as THE GRIM REAPER, a waste of a good title on a reallllllly bad movie. You can protest that this is not a true zombie movie and I’ll agree but add that it’s not a true movie either, in the usual sense of the word.
Directed Joe D’Amato aka Sarah Asproon / Donna Aubert / Steven Benson / Anna Bergman / John Bird / Jim Black / Alexandre Borski / Alexandre Borsky / James Burke / Lee Castle / Lynn Clark / O.J. Clarke / Hugo Clevers / Joe Damato / Joe De Mato / Raf De Palma / Michael Di Caprio / Paolo Dominici / Dario Donati / Raf Donato / Romano Gastaldi / John Gelardi / Richard Haller / David Hills / Igor Horwess / George Hudson / Gerry Lively / Kevin Mancuso / A. Massaccesi / Aristice Massaccesi / Aristide Massaccesi / Aristide Massaccessi / Aristede Massacesi / Arizona Massachuset / Andrea Massai / J. Metheus / Peter Newton / Una Pierre / Zak Roberts / Joan Russel / Tom Salima / John Shadow / Fred Sloniscko Jr. / Federico Slonisco / Frederick Slonisco / Fédérico Slonisco / Federico Slonisko Jr. / Frederico Slonisko Jr. / Dan Slonisko / Federico Slonisko / Federiko Slonisko / Frederico Slonisko / Frederic Slonisko / Frederiko Slonisko / Fred Slonisko / Chana Lee Sun / Chang Lee Sun / Michael Wotruba / Robert Yip…this guy had more aliases than Fletch at a gay bar, probably because if you’re seen one of his movies you might seriously consider avoiding anything else with his name on it.
Anyhoo, Anthropophagus. It means “cannibalism” which would be a lot easier to spell. Tisa Farrow , Mia’s sister (also in ZOMBIE, after which she quit the biz) and her friends go to a semi-deserted island and nothing much happens between the scenes where George Eastman, as a pasty faced zombie killer, kills and eats them.
Now, I don’t think he is actually a zombie but he does seem to have a supernatural ability to be wherever he needs to be and he can seem to stay underwater for inordinate lengths of time and the movie was reissued as The Zombie’s Rage so…
The film is famous for two scenes which were enough to get it banned under the “video nasty” campaign in Great Britain. One involves a pregnant woman and is exactly what you imagine it to be. The other is at the end and while I am usually reluctant to reveal endings, this one is the freaking cover of the DVD, so I guess you will not be shocked when the cannibal is left on the island eating his own intestines!!! Yeah! THAT’S dedication, man! That’s walking the walk!
This film is so marginal it slips between the margin of most marginal films, yet it has been given a loving 2 disk release by Shriek Show. 2 disks! El cid still doesn’t have a decent dvd release and Anthropophagus get a 2 disk set!!!
For completists only. Avoid The Grim Reaper version at all costs since it edits the gore out, leaving you with no reason whatsoever to watch.
A positive force for goo?
I’m glad to know I’m not inherently a positive force for goo.
“It just seems a pointless way to spend one’s time, is all I’m saying.”
Amen. PAD is wise. I’ve gone to ignoring most posts that have “Mike” at the top. I think they were trying to make another sequel to Speed and they told him if he doesn’t type a certain number of letters per day his head will explode. Now, granted, occasionally, I still look, but it’s not even fun anymore.
“Still, What about O’Reilly’s latest blunder?”
I saw that segment. The only thing, as far as I can see, that O’ Reilly was guilty of was not knowing when to shut up. I’m almost sure he would’ve done if his TD wasn’t in his earpiece saying “The segments short, we don’t want to have to run another llama spot, just keep trying to make your point so we don’t look like you have nothing to say.”
Micha, before I address any of your specific points, it is probably worth mentioning that every time I consider not participating in these conversations I am drawn back like a moth drawn to a light bulb.
Micha: “Mike’s posts only start to dominate a thread when its original subject has already been covered, and nobody has anything new to add but before a new subject has presented itself.”
I disagree. I believe Mike’s posts, and the conflict surrounding them, have actually killed many good discussions that otherwise would’ve continued unabated.
Micha: “Is it pointless? Sure. We could go to other blogs, read a good book, watch TV or whatever.”
Actually, my concern isn’t so much for you as it is for me and others who may feel as I do. And it’s not merely a philosophical problem. It is a practical one. When Mike inserts himself into the fray, and others (myself included) give into our baser impulses and start pointing out how stupid he is, the truly interesting posts get buried amongst these interminably long garbage-posts from Mike. It makes the threads hëll to read. Either I’ve got to wade through Mike’s nonsense, or else skip it and find myself wondering what other posters are talking about until I realize, “Oh, they’re dealing with Mad Mike.” And as I’ve said before, I believe many of these threads would’ve continued on a far more interesting track if we weren’t ruining them by feeding Mike’s need for attention.
Micha: “…why worry?”
I can’t answer that, because I’m not worried. If I say I don’t like something, it’s not indicative of worry. When I say I don’t like the Mike-fests, it’s not dissimilar from me reacting to a bad plate of spaghetti by saying, “Gee, this spaghetti tastes like šhìŧ and I don’t like it.” I’m not worried about the Mike-fests. I just don’t like them.
That said, it seems that every time I’ve tried to suggest that we not elevate Mike to an undeserved status (and whether that’s been our intention or not, it’s the net effect of what we’ve done), someone gets upset with me. So y’know what? I’m going to remember that old adage about having the strength to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference between the two.
I’m sorry I brought it up. And frankly, it’s the last time I’m going to address it. My life has become exponentially more busy over the last several weeks and I’d like to spend the small amount of time I can devote to conversing here by participating in worthwhile exchanges. In other words, Mike, and any exchanges involving Mike, are off my radar. Those of you who enjoy poking fun at Mike may rest assured that you can continue to do so going forward without any further comment from me.
Geez, Bill, I TOLD you I was sorry about the dámņ spaghetti! I thought they washed the tomatoes before they put them in the sauce, what can I say, man?
Sean, it appears you were making spaghetti the same way Bill Mulligan & I were making our cat food.
How soon we forget:
And today:
Perhaps if I had your experiences I too would be full of hate like you.
“I’d like to spend the small amount of time I can devote to conversing here by participating in worthwhile exchanges”
I can promise you that any subject you might choose to bring up or add too will get more attention from me than any of that other stuff. I certainly prefer an interesting discussion to a silly one, even if I am not as adverse to the silly ones.
In any case, I’ll be off the the Smallville thread as soon as I watch it.
and it’s my birthday, but not yet in your part of the world.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MICHA!!!!
Oh, I just wanted to add something about Ahmadinejad.
When the Iranian president had his Holocaust denial convention my parents were at a vacation in Tunis (a small Arab country in North Africa and filming site of the Planet of Tatooine). They enjoyed themselves,but at one point this woman asks my Mom: why are you against research into the Holocaust?
The point of this story: propaganda of the style Ahmadinajad provides has clients, many clients, even if you find him to be ridiculous.
This should not really affect your opinion concerning Columbia, but it should help you understand the reality you’re dealing with. Ahmadinajad is not a guy with a funny name, who reveals himself to be a fool the minute he steps on stage. He is a skilled propagandist whose propaganda is accepted truth to tens of millions around the world, in Iran, in the Muslim world, and also for some in the west.
I’m gay, so to me, Ahmadinajad’s words about homosexuals in Iran were too chilling to be humorous.
I shudder to think, a country where you need to stay in the closet every second of your life, or risk bodily harm or worse.
It’s enough for me to thank God everyday that I was not born in a Islamic country.
For a few minutes there, it made me want to try for American citzenship, enlist in the US Army and push for invasion, but it took me less than two minutes to remember that the US Army don’t accept openly gay people, and that Iraq actually became MORE religious and socially conservative once Saddam was removed.
It’s a depressing world we live in.
Yeah, what Bill said, Happy Birthday, Micha!
They enjoyed themselves,but at one point this woman asks my Mom: why are you against research into the Holocaust?
They should ask if it would be equally ok to research the life of Mohamed.
Actually, no they shouldn’t. It might get them killed. Which kind of makes the point.
It’s only a lie if the 2 comments you cite contradict each other. With no example, thank you for ruling out that I’m a liar.
I hear that Snoop Doggy Dog grew up rooting for Cobra, and is now dating the Bizzaroness.
Micha, Happy B-Day!!
Oh yeah–happy birthday, Micha!
here’s a present link–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc
Star Trek and Monty Python, you can’t miss
“The point of this story: propaganda of the style Ahmadinajad provides has clients, many clients, even if you find him to be ridiculous.”
Ahhhh… But, Micha, the question is…
Would the person have held that view without his influence on them? Were they looking for something to help form their prejudices or to confirm them?
“That said, it seems that every time I’ve tried to suggest that we not elevate Mike to an undeserved status (and whether that’s been our intention or not, it’s the net effect of what we’ve done), someone gets upset with me. So y’know what? I’m going to remember that old adage about having the strength to change what I can, the serenity to accept what I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference between the two.”
Bill, I’m pretty sure that no one here got upset with you over stating your opinion. It was a valid one and presented without malice or intent to inflame others. Even my starting our phone conversation earlier in the manner I did and the following email was done entirely in jest.
Mike can be an interesting issue. Besides, it’s very easy to slide on the slime back into the mad little world of Mike. Sometimes it’s actually needed for someone to point out when you’ve gotten too far into the pit.
And then there’s the phone conversation that we had. I mentioned something that I had touched on here as well. Mike had become a laughable diversion. Stress at work and a baby at home who lives to keep his parents awake? No problem! Twist the key in Mad Mikey, sit back and watch him slam face first into walls again and again and again. It was kind of fun, but it was mostly blowing off stress. Thing is, as we talked and for a little while after that, I gave some thought to what I had actually said as I had never quite worded it the way I did.
You’re right that Mike isn’t worth the attention and you’re right that he tends to drag others down with him. You were just off the mark in how he drags us down. We play whack-a-troll on Mike because he’s a pain in the butt and a completely obtuse twit. But the manner in which we do so sometimes boarder on the same level of his actions. Mike may be mental, he may a troll or he may simply be the most obtuse idiot to ever own a computer. He may also be none of those things. But one thing that he unquestionably is is something that none here should want to emulate or aspire to.
In playing whack-a-troll for the reasons and in the manner that I have, I at least have let my actions somewhat equal, while not all together mirroring, Mike’s. Mike may be a troll, but if he’s not, who am I abusing? Am I insulting and tormenting someone who is mentally stunted? Am I teasing someone who really is just that socially and mentally obtuse and immature and thus can’t help that they come off trollish and brick stupid? If I, or others here, take joy or amusement in subjecting Mike to rounds of whack-a-troll and Mike is not 100% guaranteed to be a willful and idiotic troll, are we taking on the rolls of the high school bully?
I said something some time ago about not wishing to be like the Anne Coulters of the world in the matter of wishing ill on and taking joy from the death of someone who was merely politically or ideologically opposed to me. You can not engage in that behavior yourself and then express outrage at others for it. On some level, even if Mike is an absolute 100% guaranteed troll and the worlds biggest ášš, taking potshots at Mike just to wind him up or to set him off is the equivalent of what the bullies in my school used to do to others. I defended people from it then, but am I in some way engaging in it now?
No, I won’t defend Mike from any others who want to take a whack at him and I am not passing judgment on the actions of others as they may have different motivations then I for turning Mikey’s key. But I can’t, in light of the conversation that I had with Bill and the thought process he started, in good conscience continue to do so myself.
I’ve promised to stay on the wagon and fallen off before, but it’s a bit different this time. I’ve never thought of it as anything other then ignoring Mike until he goes away. This is an entirely different mindset.
Like I said. I’m not judging others here, but it might be worth reflecting on the why behind your involvement with Mike threads and the reevaluation of what you are doing and if it is a part of who you want to be. If your reasons aren’t as base as mine, fine. If they are, think about it for a bit.
Good-bye, Mike. In future, I may address you only to correct any number of the huge factual errors you routinely post here, but our days of whack a troll are over. If there’s one thing I know for certain, it’s that I’m a better person then you and I know I can show that fact here.
And, at the risk of it going to your head, I should also thank you for helping me to grow I suppose. It was far and away greatly more Myers doing then yours, but, to borrow from Alan Moore’s analogy, had you not been the pile of šhìŧ here for me to step into to begin with…
Thanks everybody.
“They should ask if it would be equally ok to research the life of Mohamed.
Actually, no they shouldn’t. It might get them killed. Which kind of makes the point.”
“It’s a depressing world we live in.”
Of course it is a little more complicated than that. We live in a glass half-empty glass-half full world, and the glass looks more empty than full right now, believe me.
But my parents were Israelis visiting an Arab country. Which is a reason for encouragement. My mother — who is researching the life of Mohammad (or rather different story versions of it) had an Arab student, who, like Ahmadinejad, denied that they have homosexuality in their community. But she also had an Arab student who was Lesbian. Apparently one of the most popular shows on Iranian TV right now is about an Iranian diplomat who saved Jews in the holocaust. But the show is also full of anti-Israeli propaganda (http://gnblog.com/?p=263). That’s life — depressing, but not all the time.
Homophobia cannot be beated out of the middle east by force, any more than in the other parts of the world where it existed and still does. But things will change, as they have in other places. Jerusalem had people rioting against a gay pride parade. But the parade did occur despite everything.
“the US Army don’t accept openly gay people”
They still don’t?
Thank you for dropping your obtuseness over your own hypocrisy.
…however long before you relapse.
You can always Make It A First™ and cite an inaccuracy by me.
“They still don’t?”
And likely won’t for a decade or more even though everybody knows that they’re there and serving admirably now. It’s still one of the dumbest hot-button issues in our society.