william.scherk

Over at the other place, the remaining partially-sane member, Michael Moeller, is coming dangerously close to being banned disciplined. Here is a sample from the last day, below. The entire thread is worthwhile to read -- if one is interested, as am I, in the struggles of arrogant people to dominate the other arrogant folks. Here, top dog Perigo is finding himself challenged on logic, coherence, comprehension and a general ability to follow an argument. I suspect neither Perigo nor Moeller want this to blow up into Schism, but in the meantime, Moeller is pressing hard, very hard. (personally, I learned a lot from a long drawn-out SOLO combat with Moeller. He is not averse to insult, ad hominem and grandstanding, but has a firm grounding in law. He is not insulting Lindsay directly, but coming close to the edge) I imagine Lindsay is trying hard to stop himself from thumbing the red button, while not allowing his amour propre to be compromised. Tough contortion for an old emperor. Let us bow our heads and snicker at all the departed argumentarians of SOLO. The pond shrinks, the water grows more murky, and the fish trapped therein make some mighty interesting thrashing movements. Not filed under humour.

I would ask 'which one of you is the real gawd?' Which brings to mind Richard Dawkins's quips about Thor, Zeus, Wotan, etcetera. Most Christians are completely atheist with regard to Thor, Zeus, Wotan (and on and on) says he, the rascal. I also think that the question is better placed in a believer forum. I surmise that the most honest questions would be cognates to 'Why did you kill Little Billy (my mom, my sister, the Jews, etc).' Head-exploding time for those who are taught not to question gawd. The answer is apparently in scripture, but the theologists would lose tenure if they actually gave the honest/truthful answer, which is something like 'I don't have a fucking clue.' Another question, should gawd refuse to incriminate himself, might be, 'What exactly do you do all day?'

"If Jesus hated gays, why did he have such good abs?" Chagrinny is a fine confection, Samson. The word I would have reached for (besides chagrin) is "nonplussed" -- but that word also needs an adjectival form. 'Brick Stone' is brilliant. Thanks for posting this ... the cognitive dissonance of the nutters is a joy to behold. Ridicule is by far the most effective tool of criticism (even when the subject of the criticism has no idea how ridiculous they sound). The Westboro crew's implacable nuttiness may show clinical evidence of something like a folie-à-deux. The French even have a phrase for that: 'folie à plusieurs' ... but I am not sure this is even applicable. More likely is that they all are prone to at least some of the problems in thinking found on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases I clicked the 'like' button, but it does not work. *Like*

Um ... then it must have been that other guy. Sorry about that. This Charity thing is confusing me ... I thought it was setting aside judgement and analysis until one can re-state the statement (or argument) under question as if that statement (or argument) was rational. I don't think Mother Jones has a fraction of the impact as the Blaze ... but I could be wrong. The thing about the Beck Capitalist Disneyland announcement is ... well, it seems to be the equivalent of a 'kick me' sign on his rear end. The manic exuberance of the announcement speaks for itself, if you know what I mean. It is hilarious in and of itself, from my point of view. The obvious mangling of Disney's tragically-thwarted original plans -- as interpreted by a self-serving entertainer -- contains its own refutation. Here is what confused me about the other MSK's notes: Anyway, that is neither here nor there. When I get back to the file, I'll post highlights from the commentaries following the mirror announcements, at the Blaze and at Mother Jones. Until this place becomes GlennBeckliving.com, I hope there is a place to criticize his mistakes, howlers, and excesses ...

I must have misread the Mother Jones article. I took it as obvious that the writer was richly amused. Most of the article simply quoted the Blaze page that MSK introduced earlier in the thread. By far the most telling aspects of the Beck announcement and the MJ reaction are the comments on both sites. They seem to reinforce the message from each side. I will post a representative selection later ... The MJ folks might differ on the notion that Beck keeps coming back stronger, and even if they used unethical imagery to deride Beck's God's Gulch amusement park, the fact remains that Beck cited Disney as his primary inspiration. So Mother Jones depicts Beck in a picture that features him in the forefront and a Magic Castle in the background. Someone will explain to us how this is a nasty use of 'story' or 'narrative' and how the depiction somehow makes whoopee with truth.

Jonathan, regarding Best Friends Forever necklaces -- no, I haven't seen them. But that is a good and rational way to preserve our mutual heiriness, or what have you. You may not know, but I am also an amateur sculptor. If you could sketch the design, I will make a prototype, cast it, and then bake copies using either clay or acrylic clay. You know my home email and I know yours, but we had better be transparent about this. So, post the sketch, I will post my interpretation in plasticene, and we can take it from there. If I can make a suggestion, it would be that leaping upward be incorporated somehow. (one thing occurs to me, though - will my (Adam Selene-confirmed) Socialism be a problem? Or my Progressive-ism?) -- in other news, Michelle Bachman has been re-appointed to the House Intelligence Committee. She is embroiled in a wee scandal-ette, in which it is insinuated or implied that she uses the secrets she learns on the Committee to make charges against sitting house members and members of the administration. Usually Mooslem related folks. She does not name them, but takes a leaf from McCarthy and simply lays out a thesis that the adminstration shelters al-Qaeda sympathizers and operatives, including a top aide to Clinton.

Yes, Brant. Thanks again for cutting through the cant ... and filling it with fudge.

Green becomes you, Carole. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful rendering of several different genera of madness. If we could market your unique brand of fizzy humour, we could be rich, er, busy, er ... Nice to see you out of Hockey Purdah. No need to go full hijab, Mrs Whistler's garb is fine (as is any Mennonite or FLDS garment). The important thing is to look good and feel good, and have integrity.

I am willing to celebrate the anniversary. I just do not yet know what would be appropriate. Because (despite my teasing) I think a lot of us did some good work to counter the BS of PARC (as well as recognize the value in the trimmed-up journal entries, pre-cherry picked), I reject Burns's rather Black/White division into Orthos and Neos. But we know who she is talking about (with Neos). It is her term and it does not correspond to any other division of the Warring Tribes. I am going to give her Raritan piece a second look. On first read I thought Robert Campbell (and I to a much lesser extent) read her mind well, in terms of whether she would enter a 'debate' choke cough spit with James Valliant. Robert knew she would rather pull her hair out than come back to SOLO. I knew (on his intuitions and reasoning) that she was running screaming from Valliant. And I suspect now that me, Robert, Neil, Ellen ... and other warriors can probably take a grain of satisfaction that she was able to say in print what we said in pixels for a long long time ... that Valliant's bound copy of expurgated diary entries plus insane screed was as much a book as the funny papers are art. A sense of proportion is always necessary ... Forgive me, Robert for pulling your leg. Nowhere do I associate you with the Nutterzone. That was Perigo's sad mirror-reflecting. The very least important thing about Burns is what she thinks about (me/you/Aunt Irene). That she slagged Valliant most unmercifully as a fraudster (as cough spit choke author) is the take home for all of us, I hope. I think that we might think about the difference between an anniversary of birth, achievement, reaching the Moon, cleaning out your navel for the first time -- and the anniversary of a death. We will need to be sombre (while giggling beneath our sober mien), and we will need to speak to the occasion. What is the date, Robert?

MEM, in context, I think you mean Dubai. If your friend is an economist, this might add amplification (from Wikipedia's article "Economy of Dubai" (a very interesting read): The International Herald Tribune has described it as "centrally-planned free-market capitalism." I think some key words you may have missed, Michael ... Tourism, Manufacturing, etcetera. Saying Dubai is based on transshipment is like saying Singapore is an entrepot. True, but misleading. Adding a bit to amplify both our points: Oooh, Dubai Internet City. Dubai Knowledge Village. Key word: Infrastructure ... I think Beck should try to lease a floor in the Burj Dubai. It has that look of all fine Objectikitsch.

I still think that the best and biggest Capitalist Theme Park on earth is Dubai. That it is run by a theocratic hereditary ruler, the Emir, should neither be here nor there.

The best states for this Beck project would be the Carolinas and Kentucky. Both offer tax and other incentives for religious theme parks, based on a demonstrated potential for local employment. Carolina (north) still has the remnants of the Bakker theme park, and Tennessee/Kentucky each fought pitched battles to offer enough incentives for the upcoming God's Gulch theme park, known now by the name "Ark Encounter." What is Galt's Gulch but the Ark Encounter, updated by a Mormon? The Mormons already have their own theme park. It is called Utah. See http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/10/kentucky-city-gives-bible-theme-park-a-75-tax-break/ for details. There is a term in the Skeptical camp for these efforts and their success. Instead of Tornado Alley, it is "Theme Park Alley (gawd)." And it is truly great. Dennis, do not mistake this for an EPCOT Center or like Paolo Soari's encampment/utopia ... this is NOT entertainment. It is very serious business indeed.

I think that is a great idea, Jonathan. We can exchange the necessary documents privately. Look for a note in your inbox under the rubric "You are hysterical."

Ninth, I am feeling some cognitive dissonance, me. If you are right ... mein gott. Back to the bed to whine some more, and spin in confusion. Thanks, he said crampily.

Valliantquoats®!! More. The Hardesty/Valliant discourse in the obscure thirteenth circle of Randian Hell -- Amazon comment threads on book review pages -- is a fiery furnace shucking out smoking hot ingots of goodness for all. Golden. So, why no one cares about that not-Book of his anymore? Because it is an entire world of bad in not-Book, and we ignore it now. What Burns suggested about the fiercely-fought guerilla war madness of the Objectivish milieus, surely that is wrong? Randians/Orthos/Neos/Cryptos/Pomos never go all Mexican Wrestling on each other, do they? We may be need to coin a new term for the actual howlers that are accurately transcribed from the titanic struggles in the heart of the Furnace of Bullshit. ValliantDrippings? ValliantHowlers? or a portmanteau, maybe -- what is a good name for nuggets of inestimable nuggetness, directly taken from the Vast internet Corpus of James Valliant? . I am so tired, my hands have cramped, this stalking is hard on me. I think Jennifer Burns accurately described those whom in another context, I call the NutterZone. It is an elastic term. It usually denotes the Others, those who need the fire of reason to cleanse them, but it can expand and retract like a slime mold. Make sure it never touches you or you will be envelloped. And I say that as both a Progressive and Marxist, as well as a member of the Rand Cult! So, why no one cares about that not-Book of his anymore? Because it is not the not-Book that we deplore, but its spirit of prosecution and one-eyed madness, its prolixity and its constant re-birth in the fiery furnaces. Or not. ValliantNutNotes®? ValliantBars®? ValliantMishnah® ValliantNuggetz®?

Jonathan ... is this Art or Objectikitsch or what? I trust your judgement here on all matters art-ish.

Thank you, Stephen, I appreciate it. When I asked MSK above to forgive me for the cut/paste, and whined about cramp and a discussion elsewhere I did not add enough detail Michael, I should have been more clear. When I asked forgiveness for the cut-and-paste, whining about cramp and a long discussion day elsewhere, I was talking about the a struggle to have me removed from that other place I have discussions at. Here is what stopped me from writing a long post in to MSK's detailed and intriguing comments above. The other discussion is about the same thing here: Linguistic Charity, newcomers being welcome, and who has the right to be in a place or not, what and of course, What is WSS's aim and how dangerous he is to be loose. I know MSK will get a kick out of the bottom parts. Now that I have better explained why I put the cut and paste above, from my POV, I again ask MSK to forgive me. My questions to you were also sincere: why does the newcomer get such shit when the oldtimers are let go with a caution? Who is worse and why ... I think MSK and I agree on the basics, and it hurts to be assumed insincere, game-playing, avoidant at this place. I try and I fail to do the right thing, and to treat people with Charity; Charity is something not guaranteed, of course, nor should be. Sometimes Man is very cruel to Man, including me. I apologize to Jerry Story unreservedly for the terrible things I have said about him as a person. This is a good engaging thread, and was engendered by your first entry. I am glad when he triggers good discussion, and I am glad that our (apparent) Newcomer friend who slagged Jerry is still in a commentator coma. It was your praise of Jerry's entry, Stephen, that was most encouraging to me. I allowed me to better understand the dynamics of Newcomer versus the Tribe. This entry from the 'busy day elsewhere' place by a (crypto)Newcomer to Syria Comment further explains my rather cryptic note above. This old progressive cut/paste/ avoidant nitpicker is secretly a member of a Rand cult. Now we all know. Nice Stalking with you all. Love, Charity, Rational Inquiry and good pickings to all here, or rather, to those who deserve it by their value to me. I am not an Altruist, after all. I am in it for myself, rationally self-interested. "Fountainhead" Bill

Michael, forgive me for cutting and pasting more material on The Principlle of Charity and not yet responding in detail to your intriguing replies above. A long discussion day elsewhere, and hands cramped from typing (whine whine). I could briefly turn the question back to you, though, since I still really don't understand your Which is Worse query (which is not necessarily your fault). The question would be: -- "Which is worse, the Newcomer's blithe contempt for Jerry's opinions (and value to OL), or William's (less) blithe contempt for Jerry's opinions (and value to OL)?" This is more or less the question I asked above in reply to the newcomer: if I have written far worse things about Jerry than has the newcomer, which acts are worse (mine or his)? And why? The following is from philiosophy pages at Lander.edu. It is more detailed and challenging than the Wiki entry. I won't pretend that I use the principle of charity consistently or constantly or even a majority of times. I will study this thing tomorrow and try to figure out how much of a hypocrite I may be ... Can you, Michael, tell us that you routinely (unlike me) use the principle? Straight up question, just to clear the air. I am supremely self-confident in a few things, but not in instant self-assessment. If you believe that I fail to use the principle consistently, quite true. What about you? Anyhow. Hope this helps and is food for thought. I am such a terrible annoying bitch sometimes, I wonder why I do not get as much shit as Jerry ...

From Wikipedia

Note on Loftus. It was SOLO, not here, and it was Parade, not the New Yorker:

I don't know, really. To present the general countenance of an ape (you mean Jerry's avatar) is meaningless, probably. It opens up a whole wing of derision in the palace of mockery, however, as you may have noticed. "To present [a chimpanzee avatar] to people who call you that" -- can you rephrase that? I am having a hard time parsing it. Howard Roark's rudeness to Peter Keating? or issue orders in a nasty tone of voice when addressing strangers for the first time? I disagree. Ape is the snide newcomer's word. He may have intended a slur and nothing else. If you are asking me to weigh the offences (so to speak) of Jerry versus the Newcomer, I posted my thoughts above. Quote me if you had a problem understanding my points and I can amplify. We will have to disagree here -- if you are claiming that Jerry is actually working through ideas. I see no evidence of that, frankly. I hope he could benefit from pointed criticism, but he is immune. His pronouncements are just that, pronouncements. And the irrationality of his prejudices and inability to admit error are pretty severe blocks to the goal we would both hope he could achieve. An example or two would help. I was, to my best remembrance. It is a good guide to productive discussion. In context, when Jerry says something like all drugs are poisons. I take him at his word, as plainly stated. It is hard to miss the intent of such statements ... And yet not useful in understanding other folks' intent? Isn't it far more satisfying to apply a linguistic generalization: progressive, preacher, blah blah? Do you remember that New Yorker cartoon I posted/described (cited by Loftus)? the one where the kid rears up over the dining table to confront his parents (who have implicitly told him, "Curiosity Killed the Cat"? He said, What was the cat's name? How old was it? What was it curious about? Who called which teenager evul? Really? I have seen his awful website 'gallery' ... this he claims is art and hopes to sell prints.

I was called a bully a couple of days ago. That is neither here nor there (actually, it is here), but I have been worse, far far worse with Jerry than newcomer Ralph. Ralph, you are a fraud. Your 'art' is akin to Spirograph. Now, that is not true, but hey, sounds boorish, right? Better social tool use when expressing disdain or contempt (for a person) is to de-personalize the argument, cloak it in abstraction, or use ridicule against the ideas you find fatuous. Thus, Ralph, you could have said ... Jerry's other contributions to discussion are often deluded, incoherent, fit for landfill, but I appreciate this one. I am an artist of a sort myself, a renderer, an engineer of images. I don't know if Jerry's pastes are art, but I find them beautiful. Perhaps readers will be interested in my work. Jerry, why don't you shut the fuck up more often? I'll be frank, Ralph. I got my hand slapped by my peers here recently for suggesting OL (amongst the Objectivish purlieus) give too much welcome to kookiepant nutters (or whatever I said). Here we have got them all over time. Christian Objectivists. Reformed Scientologist Objectivists. God himself (part-time) Objectivish-ists. Angy ranting sliding-to-dementia Objectivettes (Janet). Bitter and unsuccessful expert Objectivists. Objectivists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And other deeply troubled and only partially-rational people. Got the hand slapped, though, because it seemed I crossed the line. I don't like Jerry's nonsense, his sense of victimization (if not for the doctors and the FBI and society and taxes and argh I coulda been somebody), and I don't like his evasive, uncomprehending rejoinders. I intensely dislike the gaping holes in his cognition and ability to reason. But somehow, I am tolerated when I give him thirty whacks. Somehow, I get to say far far far worse things about Jerry than you have without bringing on the Patrol. Why do you think that is? One other thing. A bully generally runs away or cowers when confronted by a stronger person. A bully likes to dominate, to feel dominant over a weaker being, but NEVER challenges the stronger. A bully wants to push people around physically, debase, denigrate, cause humiliation, pain, distress, fear -- for no other reason than that it feels good to the bully. Real good. The best. I cause (at times) white hot flames or rage, and sometimes (I imagine) some pyschic pain or distress. I don't give a fuck about that generally, because I think of it as a pain signal -- the sense that something is wrong, in this case the dumfuck's dumfuck opinions or whatever. I want the signal to register and be remembered. Like a hot stove of stupid. But, though a bully I may be, I don't stand down or run away, or disappear, or fail to challenge the dominant. I defend my words (almost always). I stand by them. I proceed with the argument. You have gone all silent there, Ralph. Why is that? Here's a simpler question: is this art?

I don't know if anyone here has read Gore Vidal's Myra Breckenridge, or the sequel Myron. From Wikipedia: The book is stupid, albeit well-written, but I remember screaming with laughter each time the sex scenes started up: He firmly stroked her father hills as her whizzer white clamped shut on his rehnquist. Her feet beat against his blackmun as they burgered.

Well, Jerry. Adams gives at least a paragraph of woolly reasoning for each prediction (I edited them out). Have you not read this bullshit yourself, brother, despite providing the links? "It is sufficient to look at the predictions themselves and to observe" ... which includes observing that Mike Adams's predictions did not come true. Are you seriously on board, here, Jerry, or have you already figured out everything you need to know? I mean, you put the freaking crap here, for some reason. I am sure you don't drink booze, Jerry, but this sentence appears to have been written by a very wobbly person. None of what you are writing here makes sense. You are off your rocker. I am sorry. How did you get to this point? Then you are truly beyond help. Adams even attempts to trade on the 'success' of his 2009 predictions to tout the usefullness of his 2012 predictions. Jerry, I don't know how you get out of bed in the morning and make it to Tim Horton's. I guess you have an attendant to help you get across traffic and navigate troubling situations like doors and puddles. The value of his predictions is Sweet Fuck All. Which is about the amount of effort you have put into thinking about your post.

Well, let's see. From your link: Now, all these things may come true by 2015. But Jerry, I think we should check Mike Adam's last set of three-year predictions. These were his predictions for what would come to pass by 2012. I don't know what kind of criteria you hold high, Jerry, but I do not think you will give much credence to the predictions of a man whose previous predictions have failed quite badly ... (from http://dprogram.net/2010/02/15/thirty-six-predictions-for-the-world-2010-2012-mike-adams/).