As with all good things, our run of avoiding persistent trolls has come to an end. Thanks, Sniffles, for this wonderful gift! Accordingly, we have adopted a policy that the good folks over at the Panda's Thumb have been using — the Bathroom Wall. We'll call it "Scribbled Above the Urinal" as a reference to those oh-so-witty ramblings that can often be seen in the men's room when standing at the urinal and glancing up. As with that literal medium, you might occassionally stumble across a small nugget of humorous or insightful content, but you'll have to read through an awful lot of outright crap to do so. To the ladies out there who don't understand these references, trust us when we say that you aren't missing much.

So, please note:

The management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to a post designated to hold such comments.

Most of you will never even come close to having one of your comments moved to the Urinal — it takes a special kind of person to warrant this treatment in our book. But quite frankly, we have no desire to engage in conversation with morons on our own site.

Once we move a comment here, we will likely ignore it, leaving no further reply. Of course, we may move a thread after we have already given one or more replies, so it is possible that our comments will be here as well. If anyone else feels like replying to these comments (or piling on), please go right ahead with our best wishes.

Please also note that we had hoped (rather naively it seems) to avoid doing something like this. There are plenty of people who disagree with us and who are also capable of holding a rational discussion. Take Cat, for example, whose views on life are about as far from ours as they could be. We had a very civil exchange with her, and we sincerely wish her all the best in life. Not only was that not worthy of the Urinal, it was worthy of its own post.

So, go right ahead and disagree with us — we welcome it. If you are intelligent and at least relatively on-topic, you'll never find yourself being stared up at from the pisser. If, on the other hand, you insist on continually demonstrating your persistent stupidity, then watch out for the splatter.

We thought we'd kick off this thread with the kind of poetry you can often find on literal bathroom walls, so here you go.

Look! Above the urinal! A special message!

Here I stand with downcast glance.

Tried to fart — and shit my pants.

Please remember to flush.

[originally posted 2005-04-26 14:01:19]

"In addition, any statements attributed to the Two Percent Company are strictly our opinion, and are not meant to be statements of absolute fact."

In quoting your waiver above, I especially admire the part about "not meant to be statements of absolute fact." In other words, you pretty much express a series of anger oriented tongue-up-the-ass opinions, but ultimately admit that your two cents don't amount to as much as the teaspoon of manure required to build a hill of beans.

Excellent.

Perhaps, someday, you'll understand it doesn't matter what you believe. Apples will fall from trees, lights will go on when someone pulls a switch, and matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, despite the pissed-off, malicious mood you've experienced for the greater part of your life.

The world is a stage and we all get to choose our own parts. You, on the other hand, do not get to choose which parts we "should" all play. Perhaps it would be a good thing for you to ask yourself why it's so important to you that the people in the world all think as you do. Would that validate you in some way that you can't seem to validate yourself? Apparently, you must believe this to be a possibility, as evidenced by your need to adhere "moron" labels to anyone who does not share your views verbatim. (Which, by the way, is the easiest way to demonstrate that one has run out of intelligent ammunition. In other words, it reveals your ignorance).

You're not on a quest to save the people of the world from ignorance, rather, you're inviting them to join in yours. Whereas the ultimate quest seems to be saving yourself from your own life. Find something constructive to do. You've already made an outright admission that you have no absolute facts to offer, which sadly leaves your readers marooned with the perverted intensity of your delusions. Those stricken with the same need to avoid their own lives by feeding vicariously off the high-spirited energy of others' lives will stand by you. Those who have actual lives to live will do just that.

Meanwhile, while proffering future opinions, do try to spare your readers the agony of being you.

[originally posted 2005-04-26 22:50:23]

HawkingS,

Awwww, you're cute. And since we believe that even morons deserve answers to their questions (most of the time), we'll address your concerns.

Regarding the disclaimer, we recommend that you brush up on either your reading comprehension skills or your grasp of the law. Heck, maybe both. This disclaimer does not say that our statements are meaningless (as you seem to have incorrectly inferred), but instead it points out that what we write is meant to be taken as our opinion. It sounds like this is a stretch for you to understand, so you might want to look up the word "opinion" in the dictionary (we provided a link for you to make it easier). Go ahead and click on the link — we'll wait.

All set? Great. Now, with the reading comprehension lesson behind us, we can move on to the legal lesson. This disclaimer is meant to ensure that what we have written is not mistakenly viewed by Allison as a statement of absolute fact. If we made the statement of fact that "Allison is a fraud" (which we have not done, by the way), we would be opening ourselves up to defamation charges. By clearly stating that the posts represent our opinions, we hope to make it clear that we are in no way defaming anyone. Is that clear? At all? We hope so, because this lesson will not be repeated, and you will be tested on it later.

There is one question that we have on this particular section of your rabidly-frothy commentary — what is a "tongue-up-the-ass" opinion? We haven't heard that particular expression before, but it certainly sounds "anger oriented" on your part, to use your own term. Actually, we have one other question on this section before we move on. Do you think you mixed a few too many metaphors in the statement in which you say that our "two cents don't amount to as much as the teaspoon of manure required to build a hill of beans"? We think so. Work on that.

Now, your next comments are somewhat frustrating, we admit. We'll therefore address these statements individually:

Perhaps, someday, you'll understand it doesn't matter what you believe.

HawkingS, HawkingS, HawkingS.... It seems that no matter how many times we go over this same point, the intellectual dimwits of the world never get it. We'll try one more time, just for you. The quote below is from a previous post entitled "An Ongoing Conversation About Beliefs" which, according to our site's logs, you have read. This time, focus on the words as they dance before your eyes:

While we believe it is important to get the facts about these things out in the open, ultimately it is up to each individual to decide what they want to believe. We have no desire at all to force you to stop believing in psychics, ghosts, or reincarnation. We actually wrote a post about this a little while back called "Believe What You Want to Believe." It states, in part, the following:

It is important to understand that we fully support your right to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of the supporting facts, or lack thereof. We firmly support your right to your own personal beliefs, and we would gladly argue for you to maintain that right. That said, it is equally important to understand that we maintain the right to not believe what you believe, and to think that what you believe is silly. Just because you believe something passionately, don't expect us to respect that belief. We will respect your right to hold that belief, but not necessarily the belief itself.

The main issue here is that we should all have the right to believe whatever we want to believe, as long as that belief doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

In a nutshell: believe what you want to believe, just don't expect universal respect for your beliefs, and don't try to force your beliefs on anyone else.

Does that clear it up at all? If you actually read that entry and still have questions (we won't ask that they be intelligent questions, to be fair to you), please pass them along to us. You next state:

Apples will fall from trees, lights will go on when someone pulls a switch, and matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, ...

Ummmm...yeah. We agree, in general. Unless, of course, the switch in question is wired to turn the light off when it is "pulled," but we feel that this is a minor quibble given that this one sentence fragment is probably the most right you've been in your entire diatribe. So we'll concede the above points for the purposes of this discussion. No need to thank us. Your sentence goes on:

...despite the pissed-off, malicious mood you've experienced for the greater part of your life.

We hesitate to dump this on you, HawkingS, since you seem like a fragile and sensitive person, but our lives are, overall, pretty happy. Since, as we said, you visited our post called "An Ongoing Conversation About Beliefs", you should know this already. Oh, right, reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you. Sorry, we forgot. We'll summarize for you, and we'll cut out the big words:

In point of fact, [our skepticism] does not at all [make us sad] or leave us without hope — we are actually quite happy people. Sure, it can be [sad] sometimes when people close to us die, since we don't believe they exist in any way afterwards; but to us, that's no reason to [fool] ourselves with [fake] tales. In fact, it makes us [like] life all the more, knowing how limited and [nice] it is. There's nothing [sad] or [sad] about it; we live to [add] to the advancement of [people] as a whole, and even more importantly to provide comfort, security, love and as many laughs as possible to those from whom we would ask only the same in return. This fulfills us far more than living our lives with the expectation of something more after we die.

Once again, does this clear it up at all? As above, if you actually read this post and you still have questions (again, we'll take your continued unintelligent questions), let us know.

From here, you go on a Shakespeare kick for a bit. We'll label that as creative license and let it slide. But then you again state that we want to dictate what other people can or cannot believe. Rather than rehash the thoroughly hashed reference to our earlier post, we'll just provide the title and the link, this time in all caps with some extra exclamation points since that sometimes helps those who are slow on the uptake — BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE!!!

Continuing on, we certainly do not "adhere 'moron' labels" to "anyone who does not share [our] views verbatim." First and foremost, we don't have any moron labels. Based on some of the comments we've received, though, we could certainly use some. Do you know where we can get them? We're thinking wholesale based on the volumes we'd need. Second (and now more foremost), we "adhere 'moron' labels" to morons, moron. Sheesh, get it straight.

We'd also caution you to be careful saying that insults are a sure way to "demonstrate that one has run out of intelligent ammunition" since you started your comment to us with that whole "tongue-up-the-ass" thing. But hey, that's your theory, not ours.

As far as our "quest," we're pretty sure that we get to decide what that is, and not you. Didn't you just spend a sentence or two talking about how we can't decide what others should do? Tsk, tsk.

We do want to correct you on something, though. If you feel that we are "inviting" others to join in anything of ours, including our "ignorance," please understand that you are most certainly not invited. Much like the guy at the office we know who always ruins a get together (Rick), we'd prefer to keep as far away from you as possible. You conclude:

Find something constructive to do.

Like visiting other people's sites and contributing raving diatribes that illustrate our unstable emotional states and underdeveloped intelligence? Nah, we'll stick to what we know and let experts like you handle the lunacy.

You've already made an outright admission that you have no absolute facts to offer, which sadly leaves your readers marooned with the perverted intensity of your delusions.

Er, no. Reading comprehension again, please see above. And when did we become perverts here? You're the one making veiled references to rim jobs, not us.

Those stricken with the same need to avoid their own lives by feeding vicariously off the high-spirited energy of others' lives will stand by you. Those who have actual lives to live will do just that.

Wait, whose "high-spirited energy" are we feeding vicariously off of here? Allison's? Yours? We're just not sure. Enlighten us, please, HawkingS. We want our lives to have meaning!!!! Pretty please?

Meanwhile, while proffering future opinions, do try to spare your readers the agony of being you.

Well, now you've got us. Because only here, at the end of our reply, do we see the folly of our ways. When our readers (the intelligent ones, mind you) see the outright insanity that we have to deal with from people like you, they will certainly know the agony of being us. Temporary agony, to be sure, but agony nonetheless.

Thanks for your spirited, if completely dimwitted and seriously misguided, diatribe, HawkingS. It served as a momentary beacon of high-spirited energy in our otherwise unvalidated and pissed-off lives. As a result of your intellectual stimulation, we're going to go off and reassess everything that we believe over a cup of hot cocoa. Then maybe we'll bend some spoons, or some shit like that. Whatever.

You know, there are plenty of intelligent ways to attack our views. To do so, though, requires a few skills that you don't seem to possess (as discussed above). It would also require that you read more than three (out of 130+) posts on our blog (and perhaps even some of our Score entries as well) so that you can form an educated opinion about us as opposed to the knee-jerk "you suck" opinion that you have expressed with such undue arrogance. As a result of your lack of preparation, you ended up lobbing a "small penis" type list of insults at us with no basis in reality.

Overall, we'd give you a D- — you get points for using capital letters and some punctuation, but in general, you need lots of improvement. Come back and play with us some more when you grow up.

Hugs and wet lickery kisses,
The Two Percent Company.

[The views expressed in this comment are strictly our opinion, and are not meant to be statements of absolute fact. Except the insulting bits aimed at HawkingS — those are true.]

[originally posted 2005-04-29 03:12:58]

In response to: "Awwww, you're cute. And since we believe that even morons deserve answers to their questions (most of the time), we'll address your concerns."

Gee thanks Mr. We, but the one question I posited was not answered in any part of your reply.

Your statement, "Even morons deserve…" is a moron label. In other words, each and every time you label anyone a moron, you've affixed a "moron label. Webster's has this to say about a label: A brief description given for purposes of identification. You have no need to inquire about bulk rates on moron labels, as it would seem you've come innately equipped with enough labels to last an entire lifetime. If not, I'm sure you'll devise a way to recycle the ones you've already put to use.

I find it of utmost interest that you chose to open your reply to me using a moron label. You may as well have said, "You're right, I have no intellectual ammo, so take that you moron!" Tell me, why would you waste the precious moments of your life playing pin-the-tail-on-the-idiot with so many "morons"? If you read through the replies you've placed onsite, you'll find numerous persons you've addressed as such. Either you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time, or you get some sort of buzz out of verbal abuse and condescension. If this isn't absolute proof of "I've-got-no-real-life" syndrome, I can't imagine what else it could be.

The need for a brush up on reading comprehension skills rests squarely on your shoulders, Mr. We. You've plainly posted your waiver all over the site, not just on the threads connected to Allison Dubois. While I am well aware of what an opinion is, this does not detract one iota from the fact that your waiver clearly states that you have no absolute facts to offer your readers.

I "inferred" nothing about the "meaninglessness" of your statements, I simply asked you to acknowledge that by your own words, you admit that you have no absolute facts to offer to your readers. Perhaps this bears repeating: By your own admission, you have no absolute facts to offer your readers. I don't give a flying oyster as to why you've included this waiver on your site (I'm quite sure you use it to legally cover your ass due to the fact that the majority of your statements are both defamatory and worthy of litigation) I'm quite simply reminding you that you've openly admitted to offering no absolute facts to your readers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to comprehend, "not meant to be statements of absolute fact." Further, a simple waiver stating that you do not wish to defame anyone has not kept you from doing so; it has simply shielded you from rightful prosecution. (There's more than one definition in the dictionary for "perverted," Mr. We. One would think a fellow contending to have a solid grasp on the language would be keenly aware of that. Evidently, not so).

Tongue-up-the-ass opinions are equivalent to "eat shit and die" statements. They go hand in hand with resorting to calling others childish names. For more on this practice, visit your local elementary school. The use of the statement is not anger-oriented on my part; rather, it is a mere observation of your lack of communication skills and techniques--which I find amusing.

As for extended metaphors, admit it, their use creates a script far more entertaining than your morose verbal abuses and, what's more, you absolutely loved it. It would do you well to investigate these literary tools and incorporate them into your own mundane writing, but that would require a teaspoon of creative thinking and a cup and half of humor, both of which, I suspect, you're sadly lacking. Still, you might give it a try a week or two before your next flatulence ignition contest commences (for more on that see freshmen college dorms on Tuesday nights. Just go down the hall and turn left).

In regard to you giving others the room to believe what they want to believe: Indeed, your quoted material would clear it up, if you weren't in the habit of using moron labels for anyone with a differing opinion. You're essentially talking the talk without the ability to walk the walk. (You say one thing, but demonstrate the opposite). Resorting to the moron labeling clearly demonstrates that you have zero tolerance for anyone expressing belief systems outside your own. In essence your saying it's fine for others to hold beliefs you do not hold, but that they can and should expect you to disrespect them with vehement verbal assaults for attempting to enter into a civilized conversation with you. So, for all the effort you put into trying to convince your readership (and yourself) that you are tolerant of other's beliefs, the evidence against this is massive and blatantly obvious.
As a matter of fact, this has been the point of my focus for good reason. Your inability to demonstrate an objective point of view in a reasonable manner (without resorting to name calling and/or using other anger oriented diatribes such as sarcasm) effectively disqualifies any of your opinions as reputable in any sense of the term. In turn, your inability to deliver reputable opinion sets you apart from those who weigh issues scientifically, which requires maintaining an objective outlook you are clearly incapable of. For more on this, go through your site and count how many times you've used verbal abuse as a defense instead of a well-posited argument to respectfully refute a point-by-point debate. These established patterns show you for what you are—a hothead, which is far from the capable scholar you would have others believe you are.

In regard to your pissed-off, malicious mood: Once again, your quoted content would indeed clear it up but for the overwhelming evidence available that suggests you're still talking the talk without walking the walk. Happy people generally don't go about verbally abusing others and they generally don't display the classic signs of inferiority complex evident in your disrespectful and condescending attitude. (i.e., Anyone who dares to defy your position and opinion must dwell in the halls of inferior intelligence). In case you weren't aware, verbal abuse of this type does absolutely nothing to "add to the advancement of people as a whole" and/or "provide comfort, security, love," or laughter. Instead, you show yourself as an arrogant ass enjoying the berating of others for kicks and thrills. You certainly have failed miserably at projecting the tolerant and thoughtful bloke you've attempted to depict.

"* BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE!!!*"

Save the capitalization and exclamation points, you can add exclamation points to reach from here to the moon and it won't change the fact that you say one thing, but consistently demonstrate the opposite. People tolerant of other's beliefs don't carry the chips on the shoulder you seem weighed down by. Go back and take an honest look at how you've treated those who've disagreed with you (if you can manage one objective view in your lifetime). If you can do this objectively, you'll find that you have no respect or tolerance.

In regard to, "we certainly do not "adhere 'moron' labels" to "anyone who does not share [our] views verbatim. First and foremost, we don't have any moron labels."
Must I remind you of your opening statements in this reply? Okay, if I must. You said, "…since we believe that even morons deserve answers to their questions (most of the time), we'll address your concerns." Mr. We, like it or not, you did affix a moron label.
Surprisingly, you follow up with, "We certainly do not adhere moron labels." "We adhere moron labels to morons, moron." That about sums up the question of tolerance, honesty, integrity, and consistency in your statements, doesn't it? You've provided an irrefutable contradiction. As far as this exchange is concerned you've become your own worst enemy. But, hey, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting.

It will remain my theory that the use of insults demonstrates a lack of intelligent response. As stated previously, the "tongue-up-the-ass" statement is not an insult but, rather, a simple observation of your "eat shit and die" attitude toward those who don't agree with you. (To whatever witticism you consider retorting with, I say to you, it is not I who has placed myself in a position of authority on this site. YOU are the one responsible for treating YOUR READERS with respect).

Rest assured, if I had the opportunity to decide your quest it wouldn't include giving you license to bitch slap every Tom, Dick, and Harry who dared to express a differing opinion. If memory serves me (and it does) I haven't presumed to tell you what to believe, what is right or wrong, or what is up or down, nor have I resorted to childish games used to force my point across; I've merely complained about your juvenile approach to scientifically sensitive theorems and to real human beings who deserve more respect than you're capable of offering. Obviously, I am not in control of your quest and can only relate to you what I have observed of your chosen path. I can't decide what your quest should be, but I sure can tell you how rude and disrespectful you have been to your onsite visitors. Your insistence for continuing with this puerile character only serves to portray all of your opinions (right or wrong) as completely disreputable. After all, due to your overbearing use of sarcasm, you'll never have anything of merit or interest to contribute to any civil conversation posited to further humanitarian concerns. What evidence have you supplied to make anyone think you're capable of having a civil conversation without resorting to sarcasm? Any fool can be civil to those who agree with him and it doesn't take a mind of superior intellect to dish out unsubstantiated sarcasm for those who don't agree. Unfortunately, I believe the sarcasm is all you have to offer. If you doubt this assertion, just take a careful look at your next reply before you hit the submit button.

You mentioned that there are "plenty of intelligent ways to attack our views." Buy this clue: I have yet to attack your views. Show me exactly when and where I attacked your "views." In fact, I did NOT attack your views, but merely your malignant attitude. Now, just how dark must the night sky be for you to have missed that? I read through enough of your blither to see that your attitude is in need of a sassy syringe and a well-lubricated chainsaw. My "you suck" observations are right on, as demonstrated by your condescending, sarcastic, disrespectful, putrid reply.

"Small penis" type list of insults? That's a rather odd phrasing to choose. Remember now, those are your words, not mine. That said, now we're getting somewhere. Is that what it's all about? Because, if that's what it's about, no need to worry, you can fix it. They have enhancements available on the market. Google it. You'll be up and running in no time.

"Overall, we'd give you a D- — you get points for using capital letters and some punctuation, but in general, you need lots of improvement. Come back and play with us some more when you grow up."

Don't you mean to say when I become as adept at the art of insult as you are? Given that this is the only form of communication you seem capable of, I'm comfortable in assuming this is your meaning. Take a nice deep breath and hold it.

" [The views expressed in this comment are strictly our opinion, and are not meant to be statements of absolute fact. Except the insulting bits aimed at HawkingS — those are true.]"

Are you sure you want to nullify your waiver by providing a public, written exception? That night sky isn't getting any brighter for you, is it?

P.S.-Your life will have meaning if and when you stop purporting to be the God you so vehemently suggest you don't believe in.

There you have it. Now go ahead and reply with every ounce of sarcasm you can muster.

What a moron! We're going to refer to him as Sniffles from now on.

Sniffles,

We told you to come back and play with us when you grew up, and you clearly jumped the gun by a good bit. Your new diatribe hasn't improved any over your old one, predictably, but we'll respond holistically with a few points. Then, quite honestly, we'd like you to go away. You're welcome to think that it is because "you have beaten us" if you like, but really it is because we're bored. You're boring, Sniffles. And you're a moron, but we've said that before.

Some salient points:

1. We are more than one person, Mr. Ever-So-Insightfully-Wrong. Sorry.
2. You state a theory that the use of insults indicates that the insulter has no intellectual ammo, but you yourself make ample use of insults. While we don't agree with your theory, we would think that you would adhere to it, at least a little bit. Sadly, no. We can't even count the number of insults you have used (and yes, we can count, before you misinterpret this sentence to mean something it doesn't mean).
3. Below are some stats on our use of the word "moron" on our site.

   % TOTAL "US CALLING PEOPLE MORONS":: 30

   % Specific Individual Morons: 12
   % Specific Groups of Morons: 14
   % Hypothetical Individual Morons: 1
   % Hypothetical Groups of Morons: 1
   % Fictional Individual Morons: 1
   % Specific Moronic Thing: 1

   Also, Sniffles, you are only the second commenter that we have ever referred to as a moron. It kind of makes you feel special, doesn't it? Of course, having only visited about six pages on our site, you wouldn't have any clue. Really, given the large number of morons in the world, our count hardly seems like a lot. Actually, we probably want to step it up a little. In fact, we will do so in this very reply.



4. We'll go back to the waiver for one second since, amazingly, you still don't get it. We recommend that you read up on defamation because you clearly don't understand what it is. We're not going to explain it again. One important note is that insults are generally not counted as defamation, which you clearly are not aware of. We tried to make this point last time, but you were unable to grasp it. In point of fact, none of the statements that we make on our site are defamatory, but that doesn't necessarily stop some morons from threatening to sue, so we include the disclaimer. Who would have thought that one moron would take it the wrong way?


5. We apply a disclaimer notice to our entire site that states that what we write is our opinion because much of it is. That does not mean that all of it is opinion. We rely on our readers to be able to tell the difference between opinions and facts — of which we present many — without a line-by-line map. Sadly, some morons seem to be unable to do this. Or at least, you do, Sniffles.


6. Here are just a few statements of fact and a few of opinion that reside in Part V of our Allison DuBois Rant, just so you see what we mean. First, the facts:
   • James Randi's $1M does in fact exist.
   • Allison has endorsed EVP and astrology as valid phenomena.
   • Allison threatened legal action against James Randi.

   Now here are some opinions:

   • Allison looks like Rogue from Marvel Comics.
   • Allison only allows believers to test her because that way she gets media validation and fame without the need to actually prove anything.
   • As far as her claimed powers go, Allison has nothing.

   As it turns out, it isn't so hard to pick them out, is it?



7. In general, you seem to be one of those people who don't understand sarcasm and humor. Even if you don't find something funny, you should be able to tell from the context when something was said tongue-in-cheek (which is the version we are more familiar with). You, clearly, are not one of those people since many of your new comments are examples of you not "getting it." Sorry — we can't help you here.


8. Yes, your extended mixed metaphor clearly shows your impressive writing abilities. We bow to your mad skillz. U pwned us, d00d! U r0xx0rz!


9. For the last time: we use moron labels on morons, Sniffles. Not everyone who disagrees with us is a moron. You, however, are. How can we be any more clear?


10. Last time for this one as well: we never told you what you can't believe. If you bothered to read the post that we linked to (which you did not, according to our server logs), you would see that our view clearly doesn't say that we won't make fun of people like you. There is a big difference. Sorry if you can't comprehend that.


11. Yes, we use insulting language on our site as often as we like, but we also back up our arguments with research. Again, since you've read such a small percentage of our site, and since you've done so equipped with such a low level of mental acuity, we aren't surprised that this was lost on you.


12. Please — pretty please — stop with the Dr. Phil bullshit psychoanalysis. It's pathetic. Do we hate our dads because we love our mothers as well?


13. While you haven't told us what we should believe, you have gone one better by telling us what we do believe. We've seen lots of morons on lots of site who do this, so it wasn't a shock. Do you understand what we're saying here? Probably not.


14. We find it pretty funny to note that you actually have now resorted to a literal "small penis" insult, which we accused you of doing figuratively in our previous comment. It pretty much sums up our entire argument about you. Thanks, Sniffles.


15. We actually did address many of your points in our previous reply, but we mixed in a healthy dose of sarcasm and insults. Why? Because we don't take people like you seriously. We have no desire to get into endless debates with morons — now that is a waste of our time. However, we try to balance that with the desire to address issues that are brought up on our site. Hence the reply we gave last time, and this time.


16. As you said, this is our site. We agree. Then you say that we are responsible for treating our readers with respect. Here you are wrong. We have no such responsibility, and we have no idea where you got that idea from. We write what we want to write, and what we want is not a politically correct page that gives no opinions and treats everyone with respect. If something is bullshit in our view, we call it bullshit. If someone is a moron in our view, then we call them a moron. We have no desire to play the part of the "unbiased media" that treats all ideas as equal, stupid or not. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. Clear?

And Sniffles, you'll be excited to learn that we at the Two Percent Company have now instituted a new policy as a result of your ramblings. Much like the Panda's Thumb, we have created a post specifically for comments that don't belong where they have been placed. Since we know how much you like disclaimers:

The management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to a post designated to hold such comments.

Since neither of your comments have anything to do with our Allison DuBois posts, since they are mostly just half-assed attempts at psychoanalysis and penis jokes, and since we view them as disruptive to the substantive commentary for this post, you have been nominated for inclusion in our "Scribbled Above the Urinal" post. Welcome to the Urinal! Please note that there are others who have disagreed with us on the same post on which your comments used to reside who will remain in place. This is a special honor that we don't bestow lightly, so be proud.

Still kissing you in a lickery way,
The Two Percent Company.

PS: Now that you're in the Urinal, you may feel free to declare victory, announce that we suck a lot, talk about our moms, whatever. We just don't really care.

I understand why you feel it's important to hide this thread in an inconspicuous dark corner of your site. "We" wouldn't want your regular readers to stumble upon your inability to maintain a semblance of intellect. However, in placing my correspondence here you've made a huge assumption, not shockingly, as the majority of your un-absolute facts are based upon pure assumption. I've given you absolutely no indication as to my gender and yet you assume I am male.

You continuously make serious errors that serve only to further discredit your site and content as reliable in any sense of the word, as I will demonstrate numerous times in the course of this reply.

Let us begin with the "hiding," or "stuffing-away" of this thread. The fact that you feel comfortable in hiding any evidence that effectively demonstrates an error in your "views," or expressions of views is, in all probability, a pattern factor. Meaning, each time you come across evidence with which you do not agree, rather than confront it and debunk it in a reliable, scientific manner, you will simply sweep it under the proverbial carpet taking solace in the old, "if we can't see it, it doesn't exist," assumption. You're in good company here as this practice amongst skeptics goes all the way back to long before the Copernicus escapades.

Go ahead and hide the thread in the cupboard beneath the stairs. Meanwhile, I'm sure you don't mind that I've taken the liberty of publishing it elsewhere on the web.

Mr. We, it was rather good of you to acknowledge that the cowardly act of concealing this thread does, indeed, concede your points.

1. You must know what they say about assumption and yet, your affinity for jumping to conclusions is second only to your sarcasm. I never said you weren't more than one person but simply addressed you as you addressed yourself, namely, "We." Now that you mention it, perhaps you protest too much. This is your SECOND instance of assumption.

2. Though I embrace it, the insult over intellect theory is not "my" theory. Rather, it's part of a universally accepted debate ethic you can find anywhere you find the practice of debate. (This debate ethic is the very reason George W. Bush never called Al Gore "a mormon of ecological proporpoises" during their presidential debate. Given the opportunity, George probably would have pounced on the opportunity).

I'm not at all surprised you don't agree with the debate principal given your overwhelming use of insult over intellect, it would be rather honest and self-defeating for you to agree, don't you agree? As for me, I speak French in order to be understood in Paris, Italian in order to be understood in Naples, and Swedish in order to be understood in the local massage parlor. C'est la vie.

3. I find it interesting that you actually think 30 is a LOW number of occurrences for this type of verbal abuse. ONCE is all it takes to establish a vile, abusive character. Also, one must take serious issue with your research methods. You've managed to use the term "moron" an average of five or six times per post in your replies to me and count these instances as ONE. That doesn't wash up as accurate statistic gathering, contrarily, it's clearly a biased gathering. This underhanded method of conveying erroneous statistics effectively disqualifies you as a reliable source for statistics and thereby nullifies any so-called research results you may compile because your readers can no longer trust any conclusion arrived at by the use of such oblique means.
Again, your willingness to stoop to provide this type of misinformation is, in all likelihood, a pattern factor (meaning, if you've done it once, the chances you'll repeat the same action again is more likely than not).

4. You continue to mention how many pages of your site I've visited and you do it in such a manner as to propose to actually know. You haven't got a clue. Before you spout out how much control you have over viewing IP addresses and such, let me point out to you that this is the THIRD instance in your latest reply where you've made an incorrect assumption. Consider my local library, my friend Henry's hyper terminal, the office, the coffee shop, etc.

Isn't it the work of a reliable skeptic to check his facts before he spouts off "certainties" which turn out to be nothing more than speculation and assumption? In short, I've seen a lot more of your site than you can possibly be aware of. Hence, here you've asserted as FACT inadequately researched data.

5. Yes, let's go back over the waiver again because, amazingly, YOU still don't get it. Your disclaimer doesn't include the word "defamation." To refresh your memory: " Disclaimer: Throughout our posts, we are presenting statements and opinions of various third parties. The Two Percent Company makes no claims as to the accuracy of the statements of any third parties. In addition, any statements attributed to the Two Percent Company are strictly our opinion, and are not meant to be statements of absolute fact."

I'll repeat myself: Your disclaimer doesn't include the word "defamation." Here's the thing: If I'm about to drive my car from one end of the Golden Gate Bridge to the next, I don't have to have an intricate understanding for the reasons the bridge was built. How, what, why, or where are neither here nor there, I only have to know what purpose the bridge serves for commuters like me. Like I said before, I don't give a flying oyster why YOU have the disclaimer, my concern is for what the disclaimer means to the users of the site. What it means to them is that you're posting third party statements you refuse to stand by, together with all other statements, none of which are meant to be misconstrued as absolute fact; which pretty much leaves your readers with a huge pile of hyped up bullshit. I thought you said you were some kind of authority on Bullshit, yet you can't feel it oozing out of your own boots.

Why would you expect your readership to take you seriously when you refuse to put your ass on the line for the statements you make? You do an awful lot of talking about others who refuse to step up to the plate and prove themselves when you're no more willing to face a fastball than they are. This is blatantly hypocritical. By asking me to consider your inferred meaning concerning the disclaimer, you are clearly expecting me to use inference as a substitute for fact.

6. You've mentioned "those people who don't understand sarcasm and humor." Your type of sarcasm isn't humorous; it's verbally abusive. You use it as a form of punishment against those who don't think as you do. In a blind mode of communication, there's absolutely no way your statements could be misconstrued as tongue-in-cheek. You provide the counter evidence for this assertion with your own statement as follows: "We use insulting language on our site as often as we like…" Here, you've issued contradictory statements.

7. You stated, "For the last time: we use moron labels on morons, Sniffles. Not everyone who disagrees with us is a moron. You, however, are. How can we be any more clear?"

Why? Is it because everyone else is so easy for you to dance around using your snarling prose? Is it because you sense you're outclassed? Or, is just because I hit you where it hurts most? It's very clear to me that it's very clear to you that you're not dealing with an inferior intellect. Those you can deal with. I, on the other hand, have forced you to stuff these posts away in the dark quoins of the site so your readers can't readily watch as you go down. I pose a clear threat to you or you wouldn't have bothered to move the thread; that's transparent.

8. You stated, "Last time for this one as well: we never told you what you can't believe. If you bothered to read the post that we linked to (which you did not, according to our server logs), you would see that our view clearly doesn't say that we won't make fun of people like you. There is a big difference. Sorry if you can't comprehend that."

According to your server logs, I have not read the post you're referring to. That's your FOURTH assumption. See #4 above for more on this server log crap. There's no "FUN" in verbal abuse.

9. You admit, "Yes, we use insulting language on our site as often as we like, but we also back up our arguments with research."

Oh, I see. One minute you're "making-fun" and the very next moment you're admitting to using insulting language. Let's check with Webster's on this one, shall we? INSULTING: Treat, mention, or speak to rudely. 2. Expressing offensive reproach. 3. Expressing extreme contempt. REPROACH: Disgrace or shame. CONTEMPT: 1. Lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike. 2. A manner that is generally disrespectful. Now let's add it up: RUDE+OFFENSIVE+REPROACHFUL+CONTEMPTUOUS+DISGRACEFUL+SHAMEFUL+DISRESPECTFUL= Who gives a shit if you back up your arguments with research? (See #3 and #4 for inspection of your inadequate research methods).

The fact is, you use insulting language for anyone who opposes your views because you don't want anyone who doesn't agree with you anywhere in sight because you are totally intolerant of differing views. Since you're only comfortable with views that do not contest your own, you must feel inept in confronting these differing views, which brings us back to why your site is totally useless.

Your use of verbal abuse insures that the only people who frequent your site are those who already agree with you. (Most people will not subject themselves to this type of verbal onslaught. You're well aware of this fact and use it to create a comfortable environment to harbor unsubstantiated views). How useless is that? You're like a Republican Presidential Candidate expecting applause from the crowd at the Republican convention and then acting all superior when you get it. You're not PROVING anything because you're too fearful of being sued to stand by third party statements or provide absolute facts. What a waste. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you're exercising some high and mighty right to speech (see #14) your disclaimer clearly demonstrates that you will never experience total freedom of speech. You're too fearful to reach for the golden ring.

10. You repeated, "Again, since you've read such a small percentage of our site…"

That's the FIFTH time you jumped to assumption.

11. You pleaded, "Please — pretty please — stop with the Dr. Phil bullshit psychoanalysis. It's pathetic. Do we hate our dads because we love our mothers as well?"

I showed you no mercy: You stop the insults and verbal abuse, and I'll stop the psychoanalysis. It's a give and take world, Mr. We.

You whined, "While you haven't told us what we should believe, you have gone one better by telling us what we do believe. We've seen lots of morons on lots of site who do this, so it wasn't a shock. Do you understand what we're saying here? Probably not."

I retorted: If you had the actual set of balls required to deliver this statement with clarity, we'd be getting somewhere.

12. You attempted, "We find it pretty funny to note that you actually have now resorted to a literal "small penis" insult, which we accused you of doing figuratively in our previous comment. It pretty much sums up our entire argument about you. Thanks, Sniffles."

You were shot down again: I resorted to no such thing. I simply offered to help: "Because, IF that's what it's about, no need to worry, you can fix it." Did you catch the "IF" in the sentence? That means it was up to YOU to decide IF the statement applied to you or not. (You must've decided it did, but that's no fault of mine...I can't control your mind). This might be your site, but you don't get to put words in my mouth. That's a dangerous practice for "professional" skeptics. Careful now, or someday someone will prove your research and so-called facts to be based strictly on the same assumption and speculation you employ without restraint in your replies. Here, you openly admit to making "figurative accusations." Not a very scientific approach. It wasn't I who threw small penises into the mix--that was the work of your juvenile mind, thus my reply: "Small penis" type list of insults? That's a rather odd phrasing to choose." You're really not willing to stand by much of anything you say, are you.

13. You griped, "As you said, this is our site. We agree. Then you say that we are responsible for treating our readers with respect. Here you are wrong. We have no such responsibility, and we have no idea where you got that idea from. We write what we want to write, and what we want is not a politically correct page that gives no opinions and treats everyone with respect. If something is bullshit in our view, we call it bullshit. If someone is a moron in our view, then we call them a moron. We have no desire to play the part of the "unbiased media" that treats all ideas as equal, stupid or not. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. Clear?"

I did a pirouette, parlayed, and went for the throat:
It would seem you have no desire to play any type of media, biased or not. (See #9) No golden rings for you, remember? The point is completely moot considering you have no hope of ever achieving media status, nor any other status requiring reliable accumulation of data. You simply don't have the proper tools and if you did, your barnyard-bully mentality would insure that no one of reputable status would ever take you seriously. (There's a really good reason "they" came up with those debate rules in the first place--so they could tell the bullshitting hotheads from the fellows who had reliable information to bring to the table). As I've noted before, you truly are your own worst enemy.

You put your arms out to your side, lifted your left leg and whispered, "Wax on, wax off..." And muttered, "The management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to a post designated to hold such comments."

Much as I adore little ninjas, I wasn't going to warn you about that banana peel:
Once again, your new waiver is nothing but an attempt to conceal the removal of material you are at a loss to refute in the standard manner.

A man sure of his capabilities has no qualms about the duel; on the other hand, the bloke who is not so confident runs away and hides. The route you've chosen insures that anyone who presents a real challenge to your alleged intelligence can be shoved into a dark hole on the site where you don't have to worry about being exposed for the conceding loser you are. Your little sewer isn't the only page on the web. Copy, paste, and voila! the cupboard beneath the stairs is no more.

Shall we take a condensed look at just a few of the infractions you've managed to accomplish in your latest reply?

1.) Removal of evidence.
2.) Understating (inaccurate) statistics for the benefit of your point of view.
3.) Asserting as fact data that has not been adequately researched.
4.) Suggesting inference is an acceptable basis for fact.
5.) Issuing contradictory statements.
6.) Consistently asserting assumption and speculation as sufficient evidence.


This is a short-list, Mr. We. What it means, in a nutshell, is that your site cannot be misconstrued as a reliable source of information but for the gullible and extremely naïve.

Why is it that morons never know when to piss off?

For someone who doesn't like us, Sniffles, you seem to spend an awful lot of time commenting on our site. If there was anything at all in your reply that was worth commenting on, we would, but that's not the case. It's just more of the same half-assed psychoanalysis that you've been spewing for days now. It's boring. Any of our intelligent readers will see your comments for the bullshit that they are, so we'll take our chances not responding to any individual accusations.

In case you haven't gotten it yet, we're not interested in talking to you because we don't take you seriously. This hasn't been a duel, as you seem to believe, because we haven't been dueling — we've been laughing. As we said, you are free to declare victory all you want, which is precisely what you did in your last post. Bully for you. We hope it impresses your friends.

Just one thing of yours we want to call out:

It's very clear to me that it's very clear to you that you're not dealing with an inferior intellect.

Much like most of your assertions, you couldn't be more wrong here.

Toodles,
The Two Percent Company.

Well, Toodles, at least you seem smart enough to know when you've been bested.

Sniffles,

Truly, your intellect is staggering.*

Thanks for getting the message, finally, and pissing off. Please be sure to print this response on the mysterious alternate web site where you are tracking this discussion. We're sure that you'll note that we have never altered a single iota of any of your diatribes, nor have we removed any of them from our site — they are all right here on this post, fully intact.

Since you have nothing intelligent to say here (we have no reason to believe that you'll start now), we wish you the best of luck demonstrating your straw man debating prowess elsewhere.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out,
The Two Percent Company.

(* Disclaimer: This statement is sarcastic.)

—•—

Everyone else,

In case you didn't bother to wade through the mountains of bullshit that Sniffles pumped out, allow us to illustrate the technique that he used in his "debate" with us. We will paraphrase, but keep his methodology intact. Of course, this is just one example of his arguments, but they pretty much all use this same tactic (except for the ones in which he just flat out makes shit up):

Sniffles: Your disclaimer says that what you write is your opinion and that it's not meant to be absolute fact. Therefore, you are admitting that you have no facts, and that your site is worthless.

2%Co: Um, no, actually. The disclaimer says that some of what we write is our opinion, but we still have plenty of facts. We rely on our readers to be able to make the obvious distinction. We only have this disclaimer due to the overly litigious nature of our society.

Sniffles: No! You admitted that you have no facts! Your site is worthless! I win!

This tactic of stating someone else's position for them then tearing it down without ever bothering to listen to the actual position of the opposition is known as a straw man argument. It is incredibly easy for the attacker to "win" a debate by utilizing this tactic, and it is also incredibly useless in proving anything. We see it often among evolution deniers. Example:

Creationist: Darwinism states that humans evolved from monkeys. If that's true, then why are there still monkeys? Therefore, evolution is false!

Intelligent Person: Um, no, actually. The theory of evolution holds that both monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. So, both evolved from some other creature. It's perfectly okay that there are still monkeys.

Creationist: No! Darwinism says that humans came from monkeys! So why are there still monkeys? Darwinism is worthless! I win!

This kind of "debate" is pointless, and it only serves to illustrate the lack of intelligence on the part of the attacker (in this case, Sniffles). Further, there is no way for the defender to win this type of debate since, by definition in a straw man argument, the attacker assigns the defender's position. In effect, the defender doesn't even need to show up, since his or her actual position is, generally, completely ignored. This is why we aren't bothering to address Sniffles' bullshit directly.

However, if any of our intelligent readers see anything in Sniffles' comments that they would like us to address (much like you might find a tiny pearl nestled in among the disgusting slime inside an oyster), please let us know. Go ahead and comment here, pointing out something that you feel is a good question that we haven't yet addressed above, and we'll answer it in this thread. You know, here in this, uh, "dark corner" of our site...currently right up near the top of our main Rants page (instead of scrolled off the bottom like the Rant Sniffles used to be on).

Thanks,
The Two Percent Company.

Well, well. You're quite adept at misquoting when you think no one is looking, aren't you? Well, you're wrong AGAIN.

Is that how you manage to make the world and all the people in it look so inferior to your views? By making up whatever words you want and shoving them into other people's mouths so that you can take issue with the "paraphrased" version? Clearly, there's no end to your unscrupulous methods.

Misquoting me provides just one more shining example of how inadequate you are. If you can't fight what I did say, then you'll just say I said something else. Brilliant.

You bet your bottom dollar this reply goes on the websites along with any other juvenile morsels you care to spout out. It's really becoming a hoot as each time you open your mouth, you dig yourself in deeper. It truly is a joy to watch.

You aren't bothering to address my points DIRECTLY because you're incapable of doing so.

I quote: "2%Co: Um, no, actually. The disclaimer says that some of what we write is our opinion, but we still have plenty of facts. We rely on our readers to be able to make the obvious distinction. We only have this disclaimer due to the overly litigious nature of our society."

(Notice how I quoted you in entirety and didn't bother to put misleading words into your mouth by "paraphrasing" to suit my fancy).

Exactly which part of your disclaimer are you having a hard time reading? There's no part of your disclaimer that states you,"still have plenty of facts." Instead, it CLEARLY states that your opinions are NOT meant to be statements of absolute fact.

Here's a direct quote of your disclaimer (I added the capital letters for emphasis) : "The Two Percent Company MAKES NO CLAIMS AS TO THE ACCURACY of the statements of any third parties. In addition, any statements attributed to the Two Percent Company are strictly our opinion, and ARE NOT MEANT TO BE STATEMENTS OF ABSOLUTE FACT.”

It really is a very simple equation:

NO ACCURACY + NO ABSOLUTE FACT= PURE BULLSHIT.

Um, moron? Have you actually read what you copied and pasted, rather than just picking and choosing the words that suit you? As any idiot, even you, must clearly be able to see, the "no claims as to the accuracy" phrase applied to statements made by third parties, not us. That means that if, for example, you (a third party) write something that is absolute bullshit, and it appears on our site, we aren't responsible. Good thing, too, since you seem to be incapable of writing anything other than bullshit, huh?

The next part applies to statements attributed to us. Not everything that we write is atrributed to us — we relate many facts gathered from actual research. Those, of course, are facts.

As far as "quoting" you, we'll let our readers decide whether our creative illustration of your diatribes was accurate. We're not particularly worried.

Now do piss off. To aid you in pissing off, we have now banned your IP address from posting any comments. We gave you plenty of opportunity to contribute something intelligent, and you failed to do so. Since we didn't start our website in order to be annoyed by irritating trolls like you, and since you have effectively violated our comment policy by supplying false e-mail addresses, we're done with you. Adios, Sniffles.

ha ha.. good one TOM, but I do "got you" and u know it. and as far as "intelligent" comments, I haven't seen one yet. Oh except for the vision of the "anally inserted sex toy" YEAH, I forgot that was so intelligent. what a joke. and Tom I think you are the idiot, "you offer more and proof" what the fuck does that mean? I must've hit a nerve with you ...huh? All comments are welcome as long as TOM can jack to it. right? You are a waste of space. get the lotion babe.

just like I thought. Tom cant take the heat. You leave worthless comments about sex toys up the ass, but cant take anyone telling u about yourself. this whole site is a joke. Did u really think u could find Natalee through this gay site? You think you;re intelligent, thats ALL you talk about. "you offer more and proof". what a dumb ass, and I would blow u away on intelligence, which, by the way, has nothing to do with a comment. You just like opinions that SLANT toward your own opinion. and I made you look like a total dumb ass, so u wouldnt post my comment....oooohh hurt my feeling nerd. You dont have to worry about me commenting on your 4 people forum. ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes, angela, clearly we are dealing with a superior intellect, here. Between that and calling us nerds, we are literally cowering under our Star Trek sheets and crying for our mommies.

Words cannot describe how unintentionally silly you look right now, angela. If you could only see yourself through the eyes of a non-moron, you would understand how foolish you really are.

See, your last comment is exactly what we mean when we talk about people who don't bother to read a post before they comment on it. When you insult us by laughing about how we expect to find Natalee via our site, you show more and more proof that you are a fucking moron. If you lack the intelligence to figure out what our post is actually about, then we really can't help you — suffice it to say that it isn't about finding Natalee. Sorry. In fact, the goal of our post is about as close to the opposite of that purpose as is possible. The fact that you simply cannot see that is staggering.

All this is over your head, we realize, and it's pointless to try to have any kind of discussion with you. So, for the last time, please fuck off. We won't warn you again, we'll just ban your sorry ass.

I followed Angela from the Allison Dubois strand to the urinal for the comedy.
I myself found 2% while searching the Holloway girl case on the net. Like Angela, I first thought 2% was about Natalee and nothing else and I may have made some ass wipe comments (2%, for that I apologize, please forgive me). Once I began to explore the site and READ, I began to enjoy the site far more than I did when first began reading it. My advice to people new to the site: Read over the score first and then explore the different rants. If you don't like it, review it again. If you still don't like it, you're probably not very smart.

I consider myself to be a beleiver in the word of god,the written law
which describes him,the sacrifice of christ and the suffering and
burden of sin which we as individuals carry on our journey through
life.

The ways in which we worship and come together as a family and a
nation are important to the ways both are glorified and
personified,as well as trivialized.
I have seen gross misrepresentations of this worship in the last ten
years in this country. It seems that glitz and multipurpose
platforms and houses built too large to even contain a cross behind
their preachers,have replaced the mystiscism and individual praise
that traditional worship once brought us.

Banners,visual readerboards,cheerleaders,busyness and loud music have
replaced the hymnbook,the soft or woodfragrence of the pews and the
worship experience as a whole has suffered greatly! The church has
lost its ability to appear humble,to help the people nearest to the
local churches in its yearnings to evangelize a world that does not
want to be sold products fashioned from hypocrisy. an unwillingness
to understand ideas thousands of years older than christianity and
immediate televised salvation is therefore left out of the "big
picture".

Where is the sanctity of silence. where are the laymen willing to
asist the opressed and forgotten of a system doing its best to drive
the faith and hope out of the christian as well as those on the verge
of wanting to receive gods grace?
In their hurry to add a youth that is increasingly disrespectful of
traditional values and brainwashed by a chronic liberalism in the
schools which almost teach this mistrust,the pastors of today have
indeed "SOULED" out the rest of us to a maranatha mentality of
BUSYNESS clamoring groupies within the churches themselves.the boards
of elders are more worried about the political structure and comfort
zones of those groups than the spirit of christ evolveing within the
individual.
This is offensive to god and the true sacrifice of the christ and his
cross. love cannot be derived or nurtured in this environment. no
individual concept of compassion can be motivated by THE bazzar or
farmers market approach to evangelism. It has become crass
emotionalism! The word and power of god becomes lost eventually no
matter how many times a scripture passage is repeated or cited on a
sunday morning.

We need a REVIVAL alright! a revival of traditionalism minus the
visual aids and technology which we know has afflicted much of the
modern world by takeing away the one-on-one communication of peoples
in need. we need people picking up hymnals once again,in pews,not in
"multi-purpose gymns"
people encouraged by being able to hear their own voices,not blasted
into the rapture by rap music and visages of whinning pleadings for
tithes by preachers with motor mouths and slicked down hair,shiny
suits that look more like used car salesmen.

Where are the CATHEDRALS,the organs,the choirs of angels,and pastors
greeting us and wishing us a good day at the door.
a simple HALELUJAH or a hug would be better than an immediate promise
of salvation or healing,or an invitation to the world.

sincerely,charles h buchanan 111
auburn wa

253-334-7243

the good lord lead me to review a video on the JFK conspiracy(and it
> > was a conspiracy)
> > and as I watched it a message came to my mind about part of the
> > investigation which was never brought before the press,and maybe not
> > even the warren commission or JIM GARRISON of new orleans.
> >
> > READ ON:
> >
> >
> > Upon re-examination of the JFK murder and the way in which jack ruby
> > supposedly killed lee harvey oswald,I found some serious
> > discrepancies.
> > FIRST,their were freinds of jack ruby some in the mob and another in
> > the lawyer trade who spoke with jack as to why he would want to take
> > out oswald with a shot to the ABDOMEN.
> > iT IS WELL KNOWN PEOPLE WITH GUNSHOTS TO THIS AREA CAN LIVE FOR SOME
> > TIME,,and ruby himself stated he was only trying to hurt or seriously
> > humiliate him.
> > if this is the reason for his action at all,since he new oswald from
> > cia and old mob connections to same,then someone was more interested
> > hideing testimony by oswald. WAS oswald really shot?
> > all the public actually saw and heard from the media was a picture of
> > an outstretched hand with a gun in it and a shot that rang out in the
> > police substation,and the large commotion and brawl which accompanied
> > this for good reason.
> > And if OSWALD was shot,then when was he pronounced DEAD,and
> > where(what hospital) was he taken to,who were the attendants,and who
> > secured the certificate of death for MARINA oswald?
> > why wasnt the MEDIA of that day all over this aspect of the story?
> > the witnesses to any events concerning these circumstances might
> > still be alive and could shed light on the subject! was oswald not
> > shot,only hit in the stomach ,makeing a breif outcry? where are the
> > forensics and the autopsy to show OSWALDS CONDITION AT THE TIME? was
> > he hustled away by the FBI and sent to south america or back to
> > russia to finish out his days? we will never know,because no one ever
> > bothered to ask? was hollywood and the mob connected as well as cuba
> > for reasons of the black eye JFK gave them with his affair with
> > marilyn monroe. the killing may have been for reasons as simple as
> > this,and with good FBI and CIA connections to the mob anything and
> > everything has a price and can be brought.
> > the only other people who would have brought any weight or influence
> > which could have pulled the strings with the dallas p.d and texas
> > rangers were the people in texas(lyndon johnson and connally
> > themselves)THE RANGERS ARE NOTED SHARPSHOOTERS AND THE FBI HAD PLENTY
> > OF PULL WITH THE CHIEFS AT DALLAS PD.the shooters most likely came
> > from this organization(rangers) and army intelligence out of the old
> > DIA.
> > the CIA recruits from ex military with an ax to grind and a big
> > payroll demand as well,so the military industrial complex(oliver
> > stones theory)also sent in a hitman,to eliminate lyndons problem with
> > advanceing the viet nam war cause. this is also "BIG BUISNESS" SO
> > EMBARRASMENT AND "EATING THEIR OWN "
> > plays a big part in any removal from office by force or politics.
> > BILL CLINTON was eaten by his own also for embarrassing quite a few
> > military men(marines) and politicians,includeing the ISRAELIS.
> > ONE OF THESE THEORIES IS ACCURATE I AM POSITIVE,
> > but without the witnesses,the evidence and a knowledge of the
> > connection of lee harvey oswald to jack ruby the mob and the CIA,and
> > how oswald actually died,or did not die,is the only way to arrive at
> > the truth now. god knows and he may tell some day! look what happened
> > to new orleans, maybe god was sending a message in katrina to all the
> > evil that occured there before kennedies assassination,all the mob
> > corruption and all the police corruption which went unnoticed to all
> > except attorney jim garrison at the time. kennedys anniversary is
> > comeing up soon so I felt I should write this now for posterity.
> >
> > sincerely,charles buchanan 111
> > auburn,wa
> >
> > VERITAS LUX MEA,in his service
> >
> > 253-334-7243
> >
the good lord lead me to review a video on the JFK conspiracy(and it
> > was a conspiracy)
> > and as I watched it a message came to my mind about part of the
> > investigation which was never brought before the press,and maybe not
> > even the warren commission or JIM GARRISON of new orleans.
> >
> > READ ON:
> >
> >
> > Upon re-examination of the JFK murder and the way in which jack ruby
> > supposedly killed lee harvey oswald,I found some serious
> > discrepancies.
> > FIRST,their were freinds of jack ruby some in the mob and another in
> > the lawyer trade who spoke with jack as to why he would want to take
> > out oswald with a shot to the ABDOMEN.
> > iT IS WELL KNOWN PEOPLE WITH GUNSHOTS TO THIS AREA CAN LIVE FOR SOME
> > TIME,,and ruby himself stated he was only trying to hurt or seriously
> > humiliate him.
> > if this is the reason for his action at all,since he new oswald from
> > cia and old mob connections to same,then someone was more interested
> > hideing testimony by oswald. WAS oswald really shot?
> > all the public actually saw and heard from the media was a picture of
> > an outstretched hand with a gun in it and a shot that rang out in the
> > police substation,and the large commotion and brawl which accompanied
> > this for good reason.
> > And if OSWALD was shot,then when was he pronounced DEAD,and
> > where(what hospital) was he taken to,who were the attendants,and who
> > secured the certificate of death for MARINA oswald?
> > why wasnt the MEDIA of that day all over this aspect of the story?
> > the witnesses to any events concerning these circumstances might
> > still be alive and could shed light on the subject! was oswald not
> > shot,only hit in the stomach ,makeing a breif outcry? where are the
> > forensics and the autopsy to show OSWALDS CONDITION AT THE TIME? was
> > he hustled away by the FBI and sent to south america or back to
> > russia to finish out his days? we will never know,because no one ever
> > bothered to ask? was hollywood and the mob connected as well as cuba
> > for reasons of the black eye JFK gave them with his affair with
> > marilyn monroe. the killing may have been for reasons as simple as
> > this,and with good FBI and CIA connections to the mob anything and
> > everything has a price and can be brought.
> > the only other people who would have brought any weight or influence
> > which could have pulled the strings with the dallas p.d and texas
> > rangers were the people in texas(lyndon johnson and connally
> > themselves)THE RANGERS ARE NOTED SHARPSHOOTERS AND THE FBI HAD PLENTY
> > OF PULL WITH THE CHIEFS AT DALLAS PD.the shooters most likely came
> > from this organization(rangers) and army intelligence out of the old
> > DIA.
> > the CIA recruits from ex military with an ax to grind and a big
> > payroll demand as well,so the military industrial complex(oliver
> > stones theory)also sent in a hitman,to eliminate lyndons problem with
> > advanceing the viet nam war cause. this is also "BIG BUISNESS" SO
> > EMBARRASMENT AND "EATING THEIR OWN "
> > plays a big part in any removal from office by force or politics.
> > BILL CLINTON was eaten by his own also for embarrassing quite a few
> > military men(marines) and politicians,includeing the ISRAELIS.
> > ONE OF THESE THEORIES IS ACCURATE I AM POSITIVE,
> > but without the witnesses,the evidence and a knowledge of the
> > connection of lee harvey oswald to jack ruby the mob and the CIA,and
> > how oswald actually died,or did not die,is the only way to arrive at
> > the truth now. god knows and he may tell some day! look what happened
> > to new orleans, maybe god was sending a message in katrina to all the
> > evil that occured there before kennedies assassination,all the mob
> > corruption and all the police corruption which went unnoticed to all
> > except attorney jim garrison at the time. kennedys anniversary is
> > comeing up soon so I felt I should write this now for posterity.
> >
> > sincerely,charles buchanan 111
> > auburn,wa
> >
> > VERITAS LUX MEA,in his service
> >
> > 253-334-7243
> >

Who the fuck do you think was the impetus behind the push by the southern states to count the slaves as part of a person? The slaves? It was the white slave owners, Anton.

Yes, I said that in my first post:

If the slavers had their way ... slaves would have been counted fully, not 3/5. It was the Northerners who wanted slaves counted for zero.

But in your determination not to acknowledge the slightest error on your part (particularly to me) you insist that this very fact, on which we agree, supports your original statement

They [the slaveholding interest in the political establishment] even had a nifty way of making sure that the white folks stayed in the majority — they made black folk equal to only 3/5 of a person. [emphasis added]

Now I freely admit that I'm not clever enough to tell how these two statements can both be accurate, viz that it was in the interests of the same faction to increase the weight given to slaves in the census and to reduce it; or for that matter why, given that slaves had no vote, any nifty trick was needed to ensure that they remained a minority. If you can resolve the apparent contradiction, I'll be delighted at having learned something new; if you can say "oops" and move on, I'll be impressed with your integrity. Since you refuse to do either, I guess I'm left with the hope that some other reader - assuming you have any - can help me out.

A footnote to all this: the CSA constitution preserved the 3/5 rule (changing the phrase "other persons" to "slaves"), presumably to avoid any wrangling over shifts of power within the Confederacy. This doesn't help my argument any, but I share it because it's kinda interesting.

As we said, Anton, any further rehashing of the same question would land you in our Urinal. And now, here you are. This is our answer, again, this time broken down into the simplest concepts that we can imagine. Next time you ask this question, instead of expecting an answer, just come re-read this list.

• White slave owners wanted power, and wanted to be able to continue to repress their black slaves.
• Slave owner sentiment drove the southern states to push for the representation of the slaves in population numbers in order to increase the representation of the southern states in the national government.
• The Three-Fifths Compromise was reached, which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting population.
• Higher population counts in the southern states driven by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person allowed for greater representation in the national government.
• More representation by the southern states in the national government meant more influence by slave owners.
• More influence by slave owners allowed for the continued repression of the black slaves.
• The continued repression of black slaves allowed the white slave owners to maintain their majority status even if slaves one day outnumbered white slave owners because of their influence on the national government.