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.

How could we possibly make this any more simple? If you can't see how our initial statements are consistent with everything else we've said in reply to you, then you're right, you are not clever enough to be here. Instead of making half-assed assumptions about what we said, and inserting meaning which was never there (like reading that slaves were worth 3/5 of a person, and somehow making that into a statement by us that they got 3/5 of a vote), why not try just reading what's there?

And as for what you said in your first post, you said that because you were suffering under the mistaken delusion that we had said something about slaves getting 3/5 of a vote. So don't pretend that you were the one correcting us, Anton. All you do is keep talking in circles, and you never reach a fucking point.

And you think that we are the ones who are incapable of admitting when we're wrong? In your zeal to find an error where there is none, even in something as tiny and tangential to our actual post (which is about comments to the Newdow case, lest you forgot or lest you never bothered to read it), you have merely succeeded in making yourself sound like a lunatic and a jackass. In all of our dealings with you, you have shown an incredible aptitude for not being able to grasp the obvious. If you can finally admit your error here on this oh-so simple issue which we've explained over and over in excruciating detail, we'll be pretty fucking shocked. We aren't holding our breaths.

Oh, one other thing:

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.

Well, if you lifted your nose out of your own asshole and read our site, you'd see that we have other readers. But then again, what do we expect from someone who took issue with our review of the Libertarian platform when he himself hasn't bothered to read it in a decade? In addition, though we don't equate number of readers with the quality of a blog, if you do make that connection, we advise you to shut your piehole. Looking at your site, we see a total of three comments for the entire month of December, and two of them are from you. If you're into that kind of thing, we've had 18 comments in the last 24 hours, and five of them are from us. Again, we don't measure quality or success on number of readers or comments, but your snarky comment seems to indicate that you do. What's that they say about people in glass houses not throwing stones? For fuck's sake.

Apparently, Anton isn't above using blatant lies in order to "prove" his points. What do we mean? Well, we came across Anton's blog, and he has apparently spent some time whining about us over there. The problem is, he is either outright lying, or he's severely delusional. You decide.

— • —

Example #1 — Anton says:

In an otherwise generally sound call for separation of church and state, 2%Co had this to say about democracy in Dixie (1789-1865):

. . . These slaves didn't always like their lot in life, but according to your logic, Mrs Gong, they should have just shut up and slaved away. Hey, rule by the majority, right? They 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. What a great deal! . . .

I put my quixotic toe in:

I'm surprised to see this [common] misconception propagated by such enlightened people. . . . If the slavers had their way at the Convention of 1787, slaves would have been counted fully, not 3/5. It was the Northerners who wanted slaves counted for zero. . . .

After going around a couple of times, 2%Co apparently agree with this point (though to avoid conceding that I said something accurate they present it as their own), but insist that it supports their original statement...

Sorry, the statement that we suddenly agreed with Anton then pretended that it was our idea is a blatant lie. What really happened is that Anton misread our statement, and decided that we were saying that slaves were given 3/5 of a vote. See those ellipses that he inserts into his own reply? It turns out that he decided to edit out that error on his part. The full version of his own comment, part of which he removed, was:

I'm surprised to see this misconception propagated by such enlightened people. Slaves didn't have 3/5 of a vote, they had no vote at all.

It's handy to be able to make a mistake, then just pretend it didn't happen. This way, when we corrected Anton, he was able to reply by stating our own beliefs back at us, and then pretending that he corrected us when it was really the other way around.

— • —

Example #2 — Anton says that we:

...threaten[ed] to delete any further posts from me. It appears that they have done so...

Well, that's another blatant lie. What we said, after Anton kept asking the same question over and over again and which we had answered, over and over again, was:

We aren't going to answer this question again. So, if you ask it, we'll remove your comment to our Urinal where you can shout into the void for as long as you want. That goes for any of your questions that we've already answered on other posts as well.

So, we didn't threaten to delete his comments, we told him that if he kept asking the same questions that we had already answered, we would move his comments to a post designed to house off-topic and stupid comments. So, that's another lie. Following on the heels of this lie is yet another — his statement that it appears that we have deleted his comment. In point of fact, his comment was caught by our spam filter, and is sitting unapproved in a queue. How would he know that? Well, the message the he got after he submitted his comment would have specifically spelled this out. However, Anton has showed us time and time again that reading comprehension is not his strong suit.

— • —

Example #3 — Anton says:

I confess I haven't looked at the rest of 2%Co's site. If their criticisms of the LP contained any links . . . .

A rather bizarre lie in its scope, but a lie nonetheless. Both our Score entry and our blog entry on the Libertarian platform have no shortage of links to the rest of our site. We freely admit that the links to the Libertarian platform itself are broken, but that's because these entries are almost a year old, and the LP seems to have changed its web site recently. We have, as we reported we would quite clearly in a recent Rant, recently made a full transition from our old site design and infrastructure to a new one — this resulted in certain pages being inaccessible for a brief period. So either Anton is completely and totally incapable of reading a Rant that is currently only fourth from the top on our main Rants page (yes, we know that's a given), and is so oblivious that he hasn't noticed the radical change between the site he originally encountered and the entirely new design; or, what a shock, it's another lie.

— • —

Example #4 — Anton says:

It was 2%Co who said: ". . . for us, one of the most important points of government is to protect those who [unlike big scary-looking dudes like Anton] can't take care of themselves."

Any time Anton edits our comments, it seems like it's a good bet that he's also changing the meaning of our statements, and this time is no different. What we actually said was:

Judging from the picture on your website, you look like a guy who could take care of himself in such a chaotic social climate; but for us, one of the most important points of government is to protect those who can't take care of themselves.

Anton was apparently offended by what was, frankly, a joke about his Halloween picture in which he is holding a gun. We have never referred to him as a big scary-looking dude, nor does he particularly scare us, so that's apparently just his own delusions at work.

— • —

In addition, we tried to post a reply to Anton's first blog entry about us to point out further misrepresentations and misconceptions on his part, but our comment was bounced. Notice how we didn't immediately start screaming about him deleting our comments or blocking us — in a much more sane way, we just assumed that there was a problem with his blog that, instead of accepting the comment, was directing us to an FBI website. See, isn't that easier than crying out about conspiracies?

Anyway, here's the reply we tried to post:

— • —

We just want to mention a few of your own inconsistencies here. We'll take them from your words above, and not from our site, just so that the sample size is contained on one page.

You say, very clearly:

I deny that my vision depends (any more than statism does) on an unrealistic faith in people's benevolence and wisdom.

Then you go on to say:

2%Co evidently understand the word "rulers" much more broadly than I meant it — they'd apparently include a passerby who intervenes to stop a crime in progress, as well as an arbitrator appointed by a private contract.

No, we don't include a passerby who intervenes to stop a crime as a ruler, but we do include it as a perfect example of our statment that your views seem to rely on the benevolence and wisdom of most, if not all, of the population.

You continue:

By "rulers" I mean a class above the law, i.e. whose official acts are not subject to the ethical principles that are otherwise universally recognized.

We also don't think that rulers should be above the law, nor is it necessary that they are unless we move toward Libertarianism or anarchy.

You continue:

That there are no rules without specialists in making and enforcing them (let alone a monopoly in that specialty) is clearly wrong. For a petty example, who enforces the rules of a private game of poker?

Once again, this is a perfect example of our point that you are relying either on the wisdom and benevolence of all people to enforce rules, or on the "I can kick your ass, so I win" rule of law. In a private poker game among friends, all participants absolutely do rely on the benevolence of those they are playing poker with. If you're talking about private poker clubs, which are generally illegal (with certain exceptions), then the threat of having your arms broken keeps you in line. In the legal version of a poker club, it is government legislation that keeps people in line.

When we say that removal of all government is not a good thing in our eyes, you reply:

That's fine with me, because it isn't my assertion: I don't propose to remove all government (only the coercive and monopolistic kind), nor is my anarchism based on the transient flaws of one particular state.

Here you demonstrate another mistake that you've made repeatedly — namely, talking about your views as if that was what our post was about. Our post was about the problems with the Libertarian platform. That document is exceedingly vague on what government, if any, would remain in place in a Libertarian world. Can you tell us how much government stays in place according to that document, and what functions that government maintains? We can't, and we've read the platform more recently than a decade ago (as you yourself said about your own familiarity with it). What we can say is that it appears to remove far too much government for our tastes.

When we ask why you think that corporations and private parties are better equipped than the government to run things, you say:

The fact that [no corporations have] ever started a war, for one thing.

No, they've just lobbied the government to do so and raked in the profits from rebuilding.

You also mention:

I confess I haven't looked at the rest of 2%Co's site. If their criticisms of the LP contained any links . . . .

See, now that's just a lie. Both of the pages on our site that address the Libertarian platform have no shortage of links to other parts of our site. The Score entry has links to the left that lead to other Score entries as well as to our blog, and our blog entry has links in the same place to the rest of our blog entries. You seem to have realized this since you are now commenting on other posts. By the way, the broken links in our entries are due to changes in the LP web site, which is something that we can't control.

All that said, the reason we stepped back and addressed your views as an anarchist wasn't so that we could avoid addressing your individual points (we stated that we will address them, and we certainly will), it was because we believe that 99% of what you've written on our site can be traced back to what we see as the misconceptions that we talked about, both on our site and above. So, rather than going point by point (which will take some time), we wanted to point out the larger disconnect first.

We could continue to go through examples from your statements (and we've done so on our site ad nauseum), but the basic point is that your views are built upon a gigantic house of cards. You refer to solving problems through civil courts in the Libertarian world, but according to the platform we read, there isn't any mention of a civil court, nor any instructions on how they would function. You say that you aren't relying on the wisdom and benevolence of people, but then you show us with statements like those above that you clearly are. You assert that there can be rules without rulers, but your examples of how this will work are devoid of all examples save those that show that you are falling into the traps we just mentioned above.

— • —

At this point, it's clear that Anton is not interested in or capable of any kind of serious discussion. His propensity for lying, his poor reading comprehension skills, and his inability to understand basic concepts are frankly annoying and pointless. So, all future comments from Anton will go directly to the Urinal. If anyone is interested in his dishonest and inane bullshit, that's where you'll find it.

[Editor's note: This comment was originally submitted on our Newdow post on 12/20 at 11:20PM ET. We moved it here, as we said we would do for all of Anton's comments, at the time stamped above.]

Damn! You're right, my reading comprehension here was not all it could be. In mitigation, your cramped heavy font is not friendly to these aging eyes. (On my own website, the font and size of body text is always left to the reader's preference.) Rather than read every word of your account of the origin of the 3/5 rule, I assumed you'd got it right, or rather, that your version was the same as mine. How, indeed, could I be so foolish?

[Editor's note: The Two Percent Company's web site has a check-box marked "Large Type Edition" that used to appear on the main Score and Rant pages and which now appears on every page on our site. By checking that box, every page on our site will be rendered with larger text. Anton appears to have missed that. How remarkably unsurprising.]

If you read Madison's account of the Convention (my copy is not handy), I think you'll find that the Southerners wanted slaves counted fully and the Northerners not at all; either way would simplify the representation formula by about half its words, the only disagreement being whether or not to include the word "free". According to Wikipedia the 3/5 ratio was proposed by James Wilson of Pennsylvania.

According to you, as I now understand, the 3/5 rule was all the Southerners' idea, because if slaves were given full weight in the census they would thereby acquire "actual power or influence." How that could happen when slaves did not vote – even if they were counted at twenty times their actual numbers – is not obvious to my puny mind.

Had I read more carefully I'd have caught your error (assuming it is an error) sooner, and we'd have spilt about half as much virtual ink. My face is red. I dare not ask you to accept this unit's worthless apology but I hope you'll consider the same.

[Editor's note: Since Anton is still laboring under the delusion that we made an error, we will simply ignore this part of his comment and tell him to re-read our list above.]

Well, y'know, you keep refusing to answer it and I'll keep refusing to pretend that you have. We agree that the South got an advantage against the North by counting slaves at a ratio higher than zero; but you still haven't said how a ratio lower than one-to-one contributed to the masters' advantage against the slaves, as you said when you first mentioned the 3/5 rule; that is, how the masters would have been any worse off if slaves were counted fully. (I wish I'd thought of this phrasing in the first place.) Instead you recite the points on which we agree, as if that explained everything. But I'm tired of this too; so, since you still labor under the delusion that you're infallible, I'll waste no more of my time (or yours) on the delusion that you're corrigible. Nothing would please me more than to see you delete all my comments on that thread (which are after all an uncommonly severe case of topic-drift), provided that you also remove or correct your original mention of the 3/5 rule. Just a suggestion. It's disappointing to see even an opponent make a cheap blunder – and in the matter of official God-babble we're on the same side.

Last week I looked through the source code of the critique of the LP platform (since it's easier to hit ctrl-G than to mouse over every red word) and found one actual link to another 2%Co page (within the content of the critique). Then the page vanished, and now it's back, and it has two such links. Wow, what a radical change! Maybe next year there will be three! Well, you may think it sufficient to say "If you want to see why we think deregulating medicine is a bad idea you can go hunting through our site for yourself; there might be something on that subject in ‘Score’ or ‘Rants’, or it might be in ‘Government & Politics’ or in ‘Science & Technology’, or perhaps in ‘Business & the Economy’." That's your prerogative; some would call it a poor use of the power of hypertext. A specific link anchored to the word "medicine" would at least give the reader confidence that there is something to find. (It would require some minor rewriting, since you're already using the word "medicine" to link to the LP plank.)

The "Large Type Edition" checkbox does no more than I can do myself with ctrl-plus; less, in fact, since I can hit those keys again for further enlargement. At whatever size, the font (Trebuchet Bold) is over-heavy and the spacing of letters too tight for my eyes' comfort. Conventional typesetting confines Bold to special functions, rather than using it for extended text, for a reason.

I'm sorry that your first comment on my blog bounced. Unfortunately it contained (quoting me) the word poker, which is on my filter list to trigger deletion without notice. D'oh! I've copied it back to where it belongs. If you'd rather have it appear under your own name, go ahead and copy it there again with the word poker disguised, then when I see the automatic notice of posting I'll delete my own copy of it. (It may be that I can afterward edit the comment to restore the offending word to legibility, without triggering the filter; I'll experiment with a dummy comment on some other entry.) If you take me up on this, make sure to obscure all five instances of the word poker; on my first attempt I missed one and saw the FBI page. Ha, I didn't know that would happen!

Correction to my previous post which hasn't been cleared yet. No need for you to re-post your poker-free comment on my blog (if you were so inclined): I find that I can simply change the attribution from me to you. But I won't do that without your say-so.

Okay, setting aside all of the other issues, this seems to be the question that you think we haven't answered, Anton:

We agree that the South got an advantage against the North by counting slaves at a ratio higher than zero; but you still haven't said how a ratio lower than one-to-one contributed to the masters' advantage against the slaves, as you said when you first mentioned the 3/5 rule; that is, how the masters would have been any worse off if slaves were counted fully.

How would the southern slave owners have been worse off if the slaves were counted as full people instead of as 3/5, you ask? They wouldn't be any worse off. We never said that they would be. All that we can assume is that this is something that you read into our initial post, because it isn't something that we said.

As we left in a comment on your site:

We didn't say that the south went into the discussion with 3/5 in their heads, but we did say that 3/5 was the number that was eventually used. The very name of the Three-Fifths Compromise suggests that the 3/5 number was just that — a compromise. We're willing to bet that the South would have liked to count the slaves as high as possible (unless bigotry outweighed their desire for personal power), and that the North would have liked to count the slaves as non-people (unless anti-bigotry outweighed their desire for personal power, which is even less likely). We also didn't say anything about slaves getting 3/5 of a vote, either, though you seem to have gotten that idea from our quote above as well.

Our basic point was that the white majority in the south were oppressing the black slaves. So, being in the majority doesn't make someone right. We extended that idea by saying that the southerners used their local influence to work a deal to increase their power on a national level by leveraging their slaves without giving the slaves anything in return. That's all we were saying. We were silent on many of the details because it wasn't an essay on the Three-Fifths Compromise.

So really, it wasn't the assignment of blacks as 3/5 of a person that specifically granted the southern slave owners more power, it was the Three-Fifths Compromise itself that did. Did our initial comment get that specific? No, but as we said (and as you agree, based on your comment above), this was not the topic of the post, and so our mention of the Three-Fifths Compromise was not in any way detailed.

That's really the best answer there is. We imagine that you were reading too much into what was, after all, a very brief footnote in a post about something else entirely.

We wish you'd thought of this phrasing before as well instead of assuming we were talking about giving slaves 3/5 of a vote. But even more importantly, we have no idea why you decided to home in on this one, vague statement in that post. We imagine that you agree with us and not Mrs Gong in the overall discussion that was transpiring, and we imagine you knew the point we were making. So why make a big issue out this? It seemed to us that you were trying to nitpick on a tiny detail by finding an error where there was none.

And please stop complaining about the lack of links in our entries. You basically admitted that they were there, but that you didn't feel like following them. That's your choice, but then don't say that there aren't any, as you did in your own post. You did the same thing with your intimation that there was no way to view our site with larger type. Now, suddenly, you agree that you can use larger font, but it just isn't large enough, and it's too bold. Once again, while you seem to be accusing us of wanting to appear infallible, it seems to us that you are the one with that fetish.

Regarding your pointers on web design, we'll take those with a grain of salt since we don't really care for the appearance of your site — at all. But hey, personal preferences can differ, so we felt no need to go into that. Not so with you, it seems.

As we said, we never assumed that you were blocking our comment on your site, so no harm done there. We've had enough experience with spam filters to know the necessary pitfalls associated with any attempt to block spam. Thanks for restoring it — we see no need to redo it or modify it as you've represented it fairly and accurately.

And yes, we imagine that there are plenty of things that we do agree on. It's too bad that we ended up in a pointless discussion over the meaning of such a tiny and inconsequential factlet. Like you, we are abundantly ready to be done with this exchange so that we can spend our time on more interesting and worthwhile pursuits.

But even more importantly, we have no idea why you decided to home in on this one, vague statement in that post.

Because the naive misunderstanding of the 3/5 rule is so widespread, and your language was consistent with that misunderstanding. If I said in passing that Louisville is in Tennessee, I'd expect someone to point out the error even if it were not central to my argument.

And please stop complaining about the lack of links in our entries. You basically admitted that they were there, but that you didn't feel like following them. That's your choice, but then don't say that there aren't any, as you did in your own post.

When there's no good reason to suppose that the specific information sought is indeed hiding somewhere behind those general labels, and no good way to guess which of them might lead to a given subject, the links are practically useless.

Well, nothing ventured nothing gained. Three of the category titles -- Government & Politics, Business & Economy, Science & Technology -- look like they might lead to the promised info about why you disagree with the LP on medicine, immigration, secession or foreign policy. None of the Score titles under those headings looks at all relevant to any of these questions.

Under 121 Rants in those headings, I see two about the FDA's prohibition of the morning-after pill (on which you appear to side with the LP), two about funding for stem-cell research, and a bunch about Terry Schiavo, none of which seems likely to tell me why you disagree with the LP's medical plank.

Then I noticed the search box. "medicine" and "border" mostly get entries on pseudoscience; "foreign", "trade", "isolation", "alliance", "internat", "countr", nothing promising; "neutrality", one item on church and state; "military", a report on military families against the war, some items about torture and Scouting and whatnot; "secess", "seced", "passport", "immigra", only the LP entry itself; "devolution", nothing; "autonom", one item about narriage (cute idea) and one on euthanasia. (I used partial words to catch all forms of a root, such as immigrant, immigration, immigrate, immigrating.)

But you tell me it's there somewhere, if only I were to take the time to look, so obviously I haven't tried hard enough. Found a couple of Rants that I liked, tho.

You did the same thing with your intimation that there was no way to view our site with larger type. Now, suddenly, you agree that you can use larger font, but it just isn't large enough, and it's too bold.

My exact words were: "your cramped heavy font is not friendly to these aging eyes." Not that it's (simply) too small; not that I could not enlarge it. Enlarging helps a little but size isn't everything.

As for my site design, I'm interested in any and all comments. How much can I ever hope to improve without them? Really it's disappointing how few visitors have anything to say other than "oo, pretty pictures."

If I said in passing that Louisville is in Tennessee, I'd expect someone to point out the error even if it were not central to my argument.

Agreed. Same with us. We're not perfect. We've made mistakes in posts before, and people have been kind enough to correct us. In those cases, we've thanked them, made the correction, and moved on. The basic crux of our disagreement, though, seems to be whether we actually had the wrong impression of the Three-Fifths Compromise or whether you read too much into our brief statement. Obviously, we tend to go with the latter (since we do now and did then understand the nature of the Three-Fifths Compromise).

Three of the category titles — Government & Politics, Business & Economy, Science & Technology — look like they might lead to the promised info about why you disagree with the LP on medicine, immigration, secession or foreign policy. None of the Score titles under those headings looks at all relevant to any of these questions.

Well, if you're looking for our views on various issues, they are all over our site. Our section on Government & Politics, as an example, has lots of information on our suggested changes to various aspects of the government, though we freely acknowledge that we haven't covered all of the topics that the LP has (though we've certainly covered many topics that they aren't interested in addressing, like science and psuedoscience). However, if you're looking for information specifically on our disagreement with the LP, then the two entries you've already read are all we've got. We aren't in any way obsessed with the LP — we looked into it as a possible viable political party, we analyzed their platform, and we decided that it wasn't at all our thing. Then we set it aside.

Found a couple of Rants that I liked, tho.

As we said, we imagine that there are a lot of things that we agree on. We are certainly big on civil liberties, so we likely come down on the same side of many issues. We just don't go as far as the LP would have us go (holistically speaking).

Regarding our site design, the use of stylesheets (which are immeasurably helpful in maintaining a site with as many pages as ours) precludes the ability for the end-user to choose their own font or point size in most popular browsers. We aren't doing this in an attempt to be control freaks — that's just how stylesheets work. One thing we'll ask, though, is whether you're using some form of anti-aliasing text-rendering engine (like ClearType for Windows). Without that, we've noticed that the text can be less friendly to the eyes. You may already be using it; if not, it could help.

I'm on MacOS, which I think had font-smoothing before Windows did, certainly before I got on the Web. Without it -- what a hideous thing to contemplate -- I'd set the "use only my fonts" option!

. . . the use of stylesheets precludes the ability for the end-user to choose their own font or point size in most popular browsers. . . . that's just how stylesheets work.

Eh? My stylesheet does not specify font or size (except for headings and such). I didn't bother learning CSS until I installed WordPress and hated the default template; the first thing I did was strip out the font codes. (No, on second thought, the first thing I did was strip the negative letterspacing. Double ugh!)

(But I guess you're using something other than CSS, as I can't find what I'm looking for in the source of this page.)

[As promised, Kabbalah student's comments will now be relocated to the Urinal since he has shown his inability to engage in an intelligent dialogue. His comment is below.]

Hatred is an ugly ugly thing.

[Oddly, he thinks we hate him. Frankly, we don't give him nearly enough thought to hate him. He's just a fucking annoyance. We suppose it feeds his ego to think that he's "hated." Stupidity, you see, is an ugly, ugly thing.]

[Once again, Kabbalah student has shown his inability to grasp what we've said, and his unwillingness to address any of the arguments we've made. That damned logic — it makes it so hard to defend bullshit! For the record, we never once talked about "spirituality" — we talked about how one specific belief system was full of holes. Admittedly, though, our patience for things that are annoying is somewhat low. But then again, isn't that part of the definition of an annoyance? In addition, despite his assertion, we derived very little pleasure from our exchange with Kabbalah student. We've had more "conversations" with people like him than we care to count, and none of them make us happy. If less people were as credulous as him, the world would be a much better place. Anyway, here's the next (and hopefully final) installment from Kabbalah student.]

When did I say I thought you hated me? I said hatred itself is ugly, in reference to the hatred, intolerance, and venom you have shown towards views you do not share.

intolerance, from dictionary.com (I am working on improving my reading comprehension):

n 1: impatience with annoyances; 2: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs

The most astounding thing I have learned from this exchange is how someone as seemingly intelligent and articulate as you could derive pleasure from inflicting insult and taking this almighty attitude that what you say and think about the subject of spirituality is somehow infallible and unchallengable. Hmm, I can think of some past religious and political figures who took such a stance...

From the Urinal

[Apparently, ana is one of those people who is so abysmally stupid that her arguments consist solely of CAPITALIZATION and the word UGLY. As such, her comments have found a new home in the Urinal. We'll just leave her here until she grows a brain — Ed.]

— • —

i would prefer not to be able to visualize theUGLY FACE and UGLY BIG NOSE of the junk food freak who answered my comment.

[Originally posted on a Rant about Sylvia Browne (talk about off-topic) — Ed.]

So you know Bin Laden's plans?? CAN YOU PROVE IT????

lol.

Concerning the names of cars.. Hey Jr...the horse is dead...move on.This has been covered already..

non-Koranic? WTF?

An yes, he does care...you don't think Bin Laden has information spies in Saudi? Don't be so naive... He is obsessed with our demise because he blames us for everything even going back to Jordan & Isreal nevermind the civil unrest that's been going on for thousands of years in Pakistan to name one and our country is only 200-some odd years old.
I could go on with our other tendencies towards weaknesses in the form of extreme culutral tolerance (like the congressman who took the oath on the Q'ueron (sp) and would not answer to who he would align loyalty to..the Constitution, or the Q'ueorn...) but it's ''tolerance'' like that which indicates a scarey pattern, while Bin Laden is seen as hero in his country, and neighboring nations. Yes of course he wants support, but the evapoation effect of our own strengths helps him, too.

So you know Bin Laden's plans?? CAN YOU PROVE IT????

Check out some of his video transcripts. Check out any information on his beliefs and stances.

Concerning the names of cars.. Hey Jr...the horse is dead...move on.This has been covered already..

Really? Because it seems to me that you were flogging that same horse in the post I directly responded to.

non-Koranic? WTF?

Yes, non-Koranic, as in "not based on the Koran." It's not my preferred spelling of Qur'an, but it fits better with a suffix, and is one of the more often-used variations. The point being that Saddam's laws didn't default to the Muslim holy book.

An yes, he does care...you don't think Bin Laden has information spies in Saudi? Don't be so naive... He is obsessed with our demise because he blames us for everything even going back to Jordan & Isreal nevermind the civil unrest that's been going on for thousands of years in Pakistan to name one and our country is only 200-some odd years old.

Wow. You're special. No, I don't think bin Laden gives a spinning assfuck about what the blues and reds think of each other. Like most of his ilk, he sees the West as a uniform, abhorrent caricature. And he's got plenty of counterparts on this side of the pond in that regard.

What exactly do "information spies" in "Saudi" have to do with any of this?

I could go on with our other tendencies towards weaknesses in the form of extreme culutral tolerance (like the congressman who took the oath on the Q'ueron (sp) and would not answer to who he would align loyalty to..the Constitution, or the Q'ueorn...)

That is some Grade-A bullshit. The Congressional Oath of Office consists of the Congressman raising a hand and swearing to uphold the Constitution. No religious book has ever been used in an official capacity in this ceremony, by anyone. Ever. Many Congressmen have done ceremonial oaths (which are good photo ops) with their favorite religious texts, and Ellison did precisely the same with the Qur'an. I don't know where you're getting the bullshit as to his loyalties, because it's entirely fabricated, and stinks of the fears in the '60s that Kennedy would take orders from the Pope.

but it's ''tolerance'' like that which indicates a scarey pattern, while Bin Laden is seen as hero in his country, and neighboring nations. Yes of course he wants support, but the evapoation effect of our own strengths helps him, too.

The evaporation of what strengths? Since we won't lynch Muslims in the streets and Constitutionally ban gay marriage, we're helping his cause? Maybe we are, but I'm not about to play Dinesh D'Souza and say "if we become more like the terrorists, they'll hate us less." That's fucking appeasement. Why the hell should we let a bunch of backwards foreign fucks dictate the direction of our country and the state of our culture?

We can elect our very own domestic backwards fucks for that sort of thing.

[Below is ~CAPRI's last comment from the Sylvia Browne post. In addition to engaging in an ad hominem attack against people from Mississippi, she still seems unable to read the text of the Lanham Act, which plainly refutes her assertions that it isn't possible to sue for false advertising. Until she clears the rocks from her head, which we imagine will only be accomplished if someone beats her senseless with a tire iron, she is banned from our site — Ed.]

Oh, that's it. You'er from MS... That explains Everything! Inbreeding... evidenced by how you get mad when others keep bringing up the same subj, yet refuse to acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy when you do the same.

Why don't you check out some meds for that OCD.

And here's a reference...call the Harvard Law Library...they can tell you that the two exeptions of contract/torte law are promises of marriage and advertising. Their number is 617-495-4516.

Exactly as I said.

I will accept your apology and retraction only if you offer it genuinely.

Oh, that's it. You'er from MS... That explains Everything! Inbreeding... evidenced by how you get mad when others keep bringing up the same subj, yet refuse to acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy when you do the same.

MS...as in Mississippi? No, as usual, you're quite wrong. I've passed through bits of Mississippi twice, and I've vowed never to return on basis of rest stop conditions alone. But the Mississippi's a big river, and yes, I live fairly close by, but significantly farther north. To my knowledge, my parents are not related. And I haven't gotten mad about anything. You're the one who said that the car name discussion was done, when you had commented on it in the previous post. You're the one who blew up instead of accepting that you had been proven wrong.

And somehow, I doubt that you can pronounce "OCD," much less diagnose it.

Maybe you should call the Harvard Law Library and ask them to read you the Lanham Act. It's okay, I'm sure that if you ask nicely, they'll even read it slowly and translate it into words you understand.

[~CAPRI's certainly racking up the pseudonyms, in direct violation of our Terms of Service, actually. She's also racking up the idiot points. She continues to claim that the "~" (tilde) in her name is written on her birth certificate, which, if true, would merely establish that her idiocy is genetic, and she prolongs her pointless assertions that she's a rich and famous media personality. Yet she's awfully reticent to simply tell everybody what the name (and perhaps the web address) of her amazing, wonderful show is. Odd, that. She seems so proud of it. Does anyone even remember how cordial we were with her in our first reply? Or, for that matter, how inoffensive TimmyAnn's original reaction was? Keep chasing the dream, ~CAPRI! But somewhere else, please — Ed.]

LOL..Nice try....but yup, name the time & Place and I'll show you my biorth cerificate...or at least my DL if you are screened properly and you do the show. I won't divulge my On-Aire name here in this forum {S DUH. Pretty much you'v done nothing but complete my initial assertion your a total geekwad hell bent on control of something...anything...because you can't control yourself..

If you'd hav read correctly (as you accuse me of not doing) you would hav seen the (sp) after the FIRST time I typed Macheivelli.. but now you are just going to blindly go to the last post with "Macheivelli" in it, and claim I'm not correct..AGAIN EDITING and not really using the TRUE meaning of what I said. This while you are dissecting all minutia of what YOU say...wanting everyone to take you at literal definition only...but NOT DOING THE SAME.

Now you're telling me you actually CARE aboiut spelling??? You hav repeatedly stated that grammer, punctuation, nor any polished sort of presentation (vulgarities, curse words) don't detract from a persons arguement...yet the best you can do is to still bitch about my typoes? ::::opens mouth wide and makes gagging motion with finger:::::
I make typos because my time is limited and valuable..and for a website that [pays me nothing...this is what you get, especially when I am in a hurry, which tends to be most of the time. I hav a four hour show with (did you get by now that Arbitron and Radio are connected? Very good, you get a *gold* star, Jr.) several hours of production afterwards...so I found a website I gave my opinion on...you think I care if you "believe me"? Let alone hav some kid tell me about the hoops he wants me to jump for his "proof"? LOL! Fuck Off. Don't believe me...like I care... but OK, I kept going even tho you hav Timmy-the-I-Barely-have-Two-Brain-Cells-to-rub-together-Ann sitting sweetly over there with your dick in her mouth....I know who you are and I hav met kids like you all day long..Hell, I'v fired kids like you because you "Know It All"...so you make a website to make yourself feel Important because you hav nothing else going on in your life. You're probably a sales rep or something...woo-woo. What's sad is that you do hav a mind just no control over that Ego to guide it.. Hence you will forever be Destined to Fail. And Fail you will. Again and Again. (You will even Think of Me typing these words when you Screw Up next...but your Ego won't allow you any creedence towards me for long...so the cycle will continue..)

Your allegations I hav been inaccurate in any way are False and Invalid. Just because I can't ":prove" something online doesn't mean it isn't so...but I gave that in the same post...I conceded the point and moved on. You Dem/Libs are sure a piece of work.

But the fact you now claim "I owe you" $1000 shows just the spin-twisted type of editing your controlling self does....which is why I made the offer to come on my show. Yup. Arbitron Rated # 1 station with numbers for large metro market. Don't believe me? Email me. You hav it. I give you permission to email me ONE TIME to set up via your agent, whomever...I'll even hav the station call you so you knopw my offer is legit. Show the size of your balls when their in MY court and sit on MY live mike while I get to set the rules like you do here, Jr.... And you're all kiddo and Jr to me... so sure, I'll pay you $1000, NO PROBLEM...but you hav to do the show first....but I guess you want to remove my post so you can try and slam more minutia at me... If nothing, it can't hurt to take me up on my offer...you would make some money for your little website hobby here, not to mention the exposure..

I doubt you will accept as you can't take it...mostly since truth doesn't seem to be a high priority for you....just twisting it does... you're smart enough to know that the best way to lie is tell most of the Truth, and twist it..just a little... Unless you are telling me you're not afraid of the truth...so come on, Big Boy...whadduya say?

lol..

Ah...you prob don't hav the balls to post this...it has what I REALLY said, doesn't it?

P/S...I hav wines that cost more than $1000... Get Real Punk. Like I said, you can't fathom people like me exist. Come on...come do the show...we'll hav some of that Dead Horse for lunch...

lol.

Thought so.

[This is the last post from this moron that we'll even bother to move to the Urinal. From here on, we just delete them outright — Ed.]

LOL

I guess it's time for me to say "I Told You So..."

Now...on with your blah blah blah....

Well, ~CAPRI, since you seem fully incapable of following our simple instructions, we wanted to inform you that you are in violation of our site's Terms of Use. If you persist in your behavior, we will notify both your ISP (Bellsouth, as evidenced by the various IP addresses you have used) and your mail provider (AOL, as evidenced by your initial e-mail address, XLNTMOMMY at AOL dot COM) about your behavior.

As a note, we thought we'd quote this snippet that we found on the Intarwebs:

About CAPRI:

Just a Mom that likes the nicer things..fine wines, substantial jewelry.. I take care of RE prop's that hubby & I own together.. Tall (5' 10"..I'm 6' 1" in heels!) with a big butt.. (*blush*) Made in USA with German/Austrian descent. Old "has been" from Media days gone by.. Now I crawl around underneath houses & work on plumbing & electric..or whatever else has to be done.. Sometimes I "fix" the plumbing or electric so well that I hav to call the plumber or electrician to come undo what I did! (Is there a "Favorite Quotes" area here?) "Let's just Nuke the whole f'ing Middle East & start over..." "Pet Peeves"? INCOMPETENCE.

Wow. We do share that particular pet peeve, actually — though our standards are apparently much, much higher. And hey! They misspelled your name on all of these sites — where's the tilde?

The same site also lists your occupation as:

Old Grey Mare...Domestic Slave...I like to type the word "hav"..lol

So that's weird. Here we thought you were this huge broadcast star, ~CAPRI. But, by your own words (dutifully archived, in case you decide to go about improving your Internet stealth), you are an old "has been from Media days gone by." Sounds like maybe you had a show on college radio or something. No, scratch that — college may be a bit of a stretch for you. Maybe you did the morning announcements in your high school?

The same site lists your favorite hotel as:

I'm too cheap to stay at a hotel..I stay with friends..

Huh! So that's weird, too. See, we were under the distinct impression that you were a fabulously wealthy woman (no doubt obscenely rich from your days as a media darling). Why would someone with as much money as you claim to have be saving chump change on vacation expenses and crawling around under houses doing plumbing work? Don't get us wrong, there's certainly nothing wrong with doing your own home improvements. Hell, we do a fair bit of that ourselves (though it sounds like we may be much more successful at it, since we don't end up calling for professional help quite as often as you seem to); but then again, we aren't fabulously wealthy. If we were, we would most likely call in the professionals from day one. And hey, with all your money, we don't understand why you're too cheap to stay at a hotel. Even with our measly funds, we quite enjoy our stays at luxury hotels when we can get away from work and day-to-day life. You must be one of those chiseling misers, huh? For the record — before you slap down your rich and famous claims on another website — you might want to brush up on your technique: there's one more thing that rich people don't often hear, but which we've learned graces your ears at least on occasion: "attention Kmart shoppers." (Not a slam on Kmart shoppers, kids; just an interesting twist on ~CAPRI's little story.)

Of course, the fact that we knew your e-mail address, and the fact that it was an AOL address, made it easy to check for your AOL web site. In addition to showing us a picture of you (we'd suggest clip art next time, incidentally), it also mentioned the following:

I don't Chat! I converse.

Uh, no, ~CAPRI. You neither chat nor converse — you fucking annoy people with your pseudointellectual bullshit, to the point of harassment. You spew falsehoods as facts, and you ignore the documented facts that others present to counter your asinine claims. You inflate yourself in your own inflated head by creating an imaginary life in which you regularly swill $1,000 bottles of wine as your "show" goes out to the entire world, while in fact you are crawling about under houses with an acetylene torch making poor solder joints that have to be corrected by actual plumbers.

We're truly amazed that people like you exist, ~CAPRI. We understand that you're some kind of hardcore conservative (from your comments and general attitude), but we can make a pretty good guess that any sane conservative would not be happy that you're "on their side." No matter what group(s) you belong to, you're creating a terrible impression of them with your atrocious behavior and flagrant displays of stupidity. That actually makes us quite proud to be the opposite of you in nearly every respect. (Similarities: hating incompetence, having Internet access, and, presumably, human DNA.)

Now, really, for the last time, you've been thoroughly uninvited: go away. It should help you obey that order in that any further comments or correspondence from you will be deleted; but, as we stated, we will follow through on our promise to alert your ISP and mail provider of your actions, should you persist in your campaign of malicious idiocy.

With all the fondness that you deserve,

Kiddo and Junior.

Pretty much you'v done nothing but complete my initial assertion your a total geekwad hell bent on control of something...anything...because you can't control yourself..

That's some wonderful pop psychology there.

If you'd hav read correctly (as you accuse me of not doing) you would hav seen the (sp) after the FIRST time I typed Macheivelli.. but now you are just going to blindly go to the last post with "Macheivelli" in it, and claim I'm not correct..AGAIN EDITING and not really using the TRUE meaning of what I said. This while you are dissecting all minutia of what YOU say...wanting everyone to take you at literal definition only...but NOT DOING THE SAME.

No, the problem with your use of Machiavelli (not including the fact that you could have avoided your idiotic "sp" by typing the name into Google) is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You toss Machiavelli's name around as if you have any idea what he believed or what he said, but your usage betrays the fact that you've heard the name associated with bad people, and assume you know what implications are meant by its use. Dipshit.

Now you're telling me you actually CARE aboiut spelling??? You hav repeatedly stated that grammer, punctuation, nor any polished sort of presentation (vulgarities, curse words) don't detract from a persons arguement...yet the best you can do is to still bitch about my typoes? ::::opens mouth wide and makes gagging motion with finger:::::

We can discuss how your arguments lack any substance or support until the bovine females return. When you're completely incoherent, when you fail to provide any kind of evidence or support for your feeble arguments, and when you display the intellect of a warmed-over plate of boiled cabbage, there's not much left to do but to ridicule you.

So, here: your arguments are worthless shit, and you are a dipshit. Better?

I make typos because my time is limited and valuable

It doesn't take any more time to type coherently than to type like a fucktard. And guess what, everyone else's time is just as fucking valuable as yours. And yet, while we take the time to read your fucked-up rantings and respond to them in proper English, you continue to crank out the same shit without taking so much as a moment to stop and comprehend what's being given to you.

But the fact you now claim "I owe you" $1000 shows just the spin-twisted type of editing your controlling self does....which is why I made the offer to come on my show.

Actually, let's take a look at that bet, shall we?

P/S...Guess what nimrod? I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf....then I'M the one who gets to play Macheivellian Power ploys and edit your comments at my discretion.

So, the bet as I see it is this: You will pay 2% Co. the sum of $1000 if they do one of the following: *Do not come on your show ("I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show") *Come on your show, but demonstrate that it is not your turf ("I bet you a THOUSAND DOLLARS I get you on my show, and then it's MY turf") *Come on your show where it's your turf, but then show that you are not the one who gets to play "Macheivellian [sic] Power ploys [sic] and edit [their] comments at [your] discretion."

So, since the latter two are rather unlikely, in the event that 2% Co. does not come on your show, it seems that you have lost the bet and owe them the sum of $1000.

so sure, I'll pay you $1000, NO PROBLEM...but you hav to do the show first

Actually, doing the show would mean that they lost the bet (unless they satisfy the other conditions of your poorly-worded bet) and that you wouldn't owe them the sum.

Sorry to keep this going, 2-Percenters. I always have fun at the local trollbecues, and it's not often one gets to have multiple servings after the ban. Adieu, ~CAPRI. Enjoy your expensive wines, your hit radio show, your island-cars and conspiracy theories and misinformation about Congressmen. Just remember that there are some things money can't buy, and brains are right at the top of the list. A rich dumbass is still a dumbass.

And lady, if stupid were legal tender, you'd be richer than God.

By the way, whichever one of you it is that has your dick in my mouth, if you could remove it for a minute that would be nice. It's not that I'm not enjoying it, I just would like to eat something and then you can put it back, okay? It's just that when my blood sugar gets low, my two brain cells start to shut down. Thanks.

[If you're wondering how we know that this is also ~CAPRI, see below for an explanation — Ed.]

I don't get why people ever believe in this stuff anyway...you're kidding, right?

Don't you think part of the responsibility is on the part of the person who supports rip-off artists like this? Not just those who pay for their services, but I think this applies to people like Montel WIlliams too, who keep throwing this at us on a repeated basis..isn't there a responsibility he has to his audience? He has her on his show all the time too. Why is he so taken with her?

We had a sneaking suspicion when we saw the comment above from FROMPARADISe2YOU in its original location on the Sylvia Browne Rant (we must be psychic). At first it was just a nagging feeling, what Montel Williams likes to call "intuition," but what really tipped us off was that her IP address was in the same range as some of the ones that ~CAPRI had used. After doing a bit of digging, we found a little corner of eBay where FROMPARADISE2YOU (at aol.com) was trying to buy second-hand soap (another hobby of the fabulously wealthy, we're told). Check out this exchange:

Q: Hi, I have several either 4 packs or 6 packs of this soap and have been meaning to list it. I think I have at least 5-10 multi bar packs and that's...

A: Sure... let me know how many you hav and what you want for them.. Thanks! ~CAPRI, Fp2Y (FROMPARADISE2YOU (at) aol.com)

Between the use of the name ~CAPRI, and her favorite non-word "hav," it's pretty clear that this comment is from our darling little unstable loon, ~CAPRI. We're sorry to report that we don't have any of this soap to spare, so ~CAPRI will have to soldier on. Regarding her comment: though it is surprisingly on-topic (though not very original or insightful), we're not interested in enabling this freakshow. We won't delete it, for the sake of continuity, but it is now moved to the Urinal. Our patience is at an end with this obviously fucked-in-the-head woman. We really have no idea what her game is now, whether this is some ploy leading up to an ill-conceived "Gotcha!" (which we're not quite paranoid enough to buy just yet), or a desperate attempt to escape the stigma of her ~CAPRI identity and finally find some online "friends" to fulfill a terribly lonely existence, or some other bizarre scheme. But frankly, at this point, we don't care.

We also received this little Candygram from ~CAPRI not too long ago:

You had better REMOVE my EMAIL address from your wesite or will be in BIG TROUBLE. DO THIS IMMEDIATELY OR YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES.

If we didn't already know that this moron has no concept of the law, we might be concerned about being "LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES." As it is, though, we aren't too worried. Once again, ~CAPRI has utterly failed to do her homework. Our Terms of Use clearly states:

6. Submissions
Designated areas of the Site provide visitors with the opportunity to submit thoughts, views, opinions, ideas and other information (collectively, "Submissions"). These Submissions will be treated as non-proprietary and non-confidential. Subject to the terms of our Privacy Policy, by transmitting or posting any Submission, you hereby grant us a perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, irrevocable, fully sublicenseable, royalty-free right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, sell, assign, translate, create derivative works from, distribute and display any Submission, individually or as part of other works, in any form, media or technology, whether now known or hereafter developed.

Too bad, so sad, ~CAPRI. Of course, we would normally not share anyone's e-mail address (other than spammers), but it was necessary to provide documented proof of our arguments (a concept that is, we know, foreign to ~CAPRI). In addition, we'd note that her address is readily available online, through no action of ours, on many of the sites we linked to in our comment exposing her lies about her lifestyle; so we didn't reveal anything that hadn't already been posted publicly by ~CAPRI herself. We'd also note that we refrained from entering her e-mail address in its actual form (thereby making it less likely to fall prey to e-mail harvesting software), and we have thus far refrained from publishing her full name and her hometown, both of which we have precise and certain knowledge of at this point. But if she continues with the baseless threats, our kindness may diminish rapidly.

Incidentally, just below the above paragraph in our Terms of Use is one of the terms that ~CAPRI has been violating repeatedly:

You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead us as to the origin of any Submission.

~CAPRI: If you have any brain at all in your skull (which you've already demonstrated you do not), you'll just fuck off. Now. How fucking pathetic and unstable are you? Really. As we've made clear time and time again, you are not welcome here any more. Your repeated lies, your pathetic insults, and your continued attempts to get around our moderation and banning are fucking annoying and sad. In addition, your actions are in violation of our Terms of Use. Go back to your delusions of grandeur and your quest for used soap, have a couple of porterhouses garnished with lamp chops (we're not making that one up, folks), and stop fucking annoying the rest of us.

I had a tearful confession of my daughter yesterday who revealed while we were away, posted messages were made and referenced to her email address at this website.

I don?t know if I read all the posts, or links, but I am wondering where it is posted that you can provide email addresses of minors.

I can understand since these are old accounts of my own where you might think myself the original poster, but to make you aware, this account is from my daughter, who is under the age of 12 years old. Could please remove this highly sensitive information?

I have also notified the parents of other minors present while these postings took place. Also I will apologize for any vulgar language made from these electronic mails, but again, now that your are aware, please remove the mails addresses you have.

If you would like to respond, you may do so at the address of ?MOMMY?, which I will be monitoring closely.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've just witnessed the lowest...no, really the absolute lowest...behavior that we've seen in a long time. You may recall that the 2006 Asshat of the Year Award went to South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli, quite early in the race, for his statements supporting the statewide abortion ban. Well, this year's frontrunner has just been established — it is, and will apparently remain for the foreseeable future: ~CAPRI.

Listen, we would normally just ignore any comments from someone who has been outright banned, but we couldn't sit on this one. We received a comment from ~CAPRI (above) in which she tried to blame her eleven-year-old daughter for the asinine comments made on our site in her name. We approved (though we didn't approve of) her comment above, and we'll comment on it here because, quite frankly, you have to read this unbelievable, revolting tripe to believe it.

I had a tearful confession of my daughter yesterday who revealed while we were away, posted messages were made and referenced to her email address at this website.

...

I can understand since these are old accounts of my own where you might think myself the original poster, but to make you aware, this account is from my daughter, who is under the age of 12 years old.

...

Also I will apologize for any vulgar language made from these electronic mails, but again, now that your are aware, please remove the mails addresses you have.

Folks, it doesn't get much more reprehensible than this. This woman is blaming her own little girl for the idiotic statements that she made on our site. Apparently, our hypothesis that she isn't a very good mother was dead-on-balls accurate.

Let's review the facts, shall we? The XLNTMOMMY address — aside from the fact that it would seem to belong to a mother, rather than a daughter, by its name alone — is used on several wine aficionado sites to discuss imbibing alcoholic beverages, and comments were made on those sites using the XLNTMOMMY address in the name of ~CAPRI as recently as December 2006. (In other words, these are hardly "old accounts" that she would have passed along to her daughter; not to mention which, an eleven-year-old girl capable of formulating and posting the comments on our site, insane as they may be, would presumably also have the wherewithall and desire to go grab a free Yahoo address with a more, shall we say, "cool" name than "XLNTMOMMY.") The wine-related posts showcase the same lack of grammar, the same writing style, and the same use of non-words like "hav" that ~CAPRI's comments on our site showcased. In addition, we found a pro-Bush diatribe on one of these sites that almost exactly mirrored one of ~CAPRI's first comments here. Would ~CAPRI have us believe that her daughter is the wine drinker (who, at eleven years of age, is wolfing down porterhouses with her "hubby") and brainwashed neocon in the family? Pathetic.

It now becomes clear why ~CAPRI posted from her alternate FROMPARADISE2YOU address — it seems to us that it was the first stage in an elaborate (read: laughably pathetic and quite abhorrent) plan to blame her daughter for using the XLNTMOMMY address, a calculated first step in which she established herself as "sane" and "able to write coherent sentences" before moving in for the money shot. Check out the impressive capitalization and general lack of nonsense words in the latest comment — it's clear that ~CAPRI is trying to look like she is more intelligent, educated and sane than her first bevy of comments would have us believe, even though her comments elsewhere on the Internet betray her. Honestly: words cannot begin to describe how low and degenerate we think she is.

~CAPRI also states:

I don?t know if I read all the posts, or links, but I am wondering where it is posted that you can provide email addresses of minors.

As we said just above, our Terms of Use clearly states:

6. Submissions
Designated areas of the Site provide visitors with the opportunity to submit thoughts, views, opinions, ideas and other information (collectively, "Submissions"). These Submissions will be treated as non-proprietary and non-confidential. Subject to the terms of our Privacy Policy, by transmitting or posting any Submission, you hereby grant us a perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, irrevocable, fully sublicenseable, royalty-free right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, sell, assign, translate, create derivative works from, distribute and display any Submission, individually or as part of other works, in any form, media or technology, whether now known or hereafter developed.

So aside from the fact that ~CAPRI is lying abominably about this e-mail address belonging to her daughter (let's all remember that "legal" threat she sent to us privately, which, by the logic of this ridiculous story, also came from her daughter), and aside from the fact that ~CAPRI herself already posted this address in more than a few public places around the Internet (very recently, in fact), we are free to post information that is submitted to us through these comments. Don't get us wrong — other than spammers (who are among the lowest forms of scum on the planet), we don't normally publish the e-mail addresses of any commenter, whether we agree with them or not (since doing so just feeds the spammers, whom we hate a lot, if that wasn't already clear). And if we thought for one second that ~CAPRI's outrageous lies were true, we would remove her daughter's e-mail address in a heartbeat. But given ~CAPRI's disgusting behavior, her unwillingness to abide by being banned, and now this disgusting display of abject cowardice, intense idiocy, and a willingness to sell out her own daughter to cover her own stupidity, we will keep her e-mail address posted in its current form. It will not be removed, if for no other reason than to keep firm in ~CAPRI's own mind that you do not "get away" with such terrible lies, if we have anything to say about it.

We are truly confused by this statement, though:

I have also notified the parents of other minors present while these postings took place.

Um, what? Is she trying to suggest that a roving band of eleven-year-olds used her wine-selling e-mail address to make asinine postings on our site, coincidentally using precisely the same writing style that she herself uses on her wine sites, and that she has informed their parents, and maybe they will all be spanked as a result? And she wonders why we never believe her outrageous stories? If nothing else, though, at least this entire incredible incident has made one point abundantly clear: even ~CAPRI recognizes that her behavior and commentary on our site were no better than those of a bunch of spoiled, unruly children. Unfortunately, she hasn't figured out that this is because she herself is no more mature or insightful than a bunch of spoiled, unruly children.

You are a truly reprehensible person, ~CAPRI, and we have no idea how you can live with yourself after turning your daughter into a scapegoat for your own lies and stupidity. Only the lowest form of scum — someone on the order of spammers, or Sylvia Browne, or Allison DuBois — would blame their child for their own idiotic statements. We truly feel sorry for your daughter, and we hope that the apple falls very far from the tree, and then gets up and runs screaming from the orchard. You are utterly despicable, and you have more than earned every ounce of contempt and invective that we have aimed at you. Please go away — we never, ever want to hear from you again, you disgusting woman.

[We thought we'd place our editorial comment regarding jaaykke's latest tripe before his actual comment. As promised, jaaykke is now a permanent resident of the Urinal. His latest comment (below) is just more of the same — redefining his own position, not grasping why his position is based on bigotry, internal inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and lame insults. Since it's clear that jaaykke has nothing of value to add to this or any other discussion, he will henceforth reside here in the Urinal.

For the record, we understand jaaykke's opinion perfectly well. Here's a quote from his second comment:

However, Mr Rodrigez' point, that Europe replaced communities of jews who worked hard and minded their own business with arabs who riot and blow shit up and kill innocent people, whose neighborhoods have become filthy, crime ridden, gang controlled, slums, despite the fact that many arabs are fine human beings, is a valid sentiment. I don't know how you can look at Europe today and not see that as valid on some level.

Or how about this nugget from his third comment:

Most arabs in europe are destructive, backwards, religious extremists.

And who could forget this golden oldie, also from his third comment:

The crux of what Rodrigez said is that in Europe, as a result of the Holocaust, a bunch of jews who worked hard and didn't bother anybody left and a bunch of a muslims moved in. Among the muslim population that moved in, some are fine citizens and some commit henious acts and terrorize the entire continent. That change of population is a negative one for Europe. I am not judging any individual arabs or commenting on weather to do so is bad or good. I am simply saying that the point that Rodrigez made was valid.

[Our emphasis.]

And let's not forget this one, from...oh, let's call it his fourth comment:

That being said, I felt that his primary point was something else, and I felt that that primary point was a valid perspective. That being that the population change from jewish to muslim in Europe from pre world war 2 to post world war 2 was a negative one for Europe.

It's pretty clear from his various comments that his stated position (whether or not he actually believes it, which is difficult to ascertain when dealing with his incredible penchant for self-contradiction) is that replacing the Jews who resided in Europe in greater numbers pre-World War II — and who, as a people, were honest, hardworking people who contributed to society — with Arabs who, as a people, are dangerous criminals, resulted in Europe becoming worse off than it had been with more Jews and less Muslims. As such, we've represented his opinion quite correctly in every comment we've left. We have no idea why he is still trying to correct us when it's pretty clear that we understand his "point" perfectly well. We've also addressed every point he has made, many of them multiple times. He has thus far failed to address the majority of our points, or to successfully address those he has addressed, and instead he has chosen to repeat his same nonsensical arguments over and over.

Some of his statements below truly blew us away, though. For instance:

my opinion is not that conditions in europe overall are worse now then they were in the 1930s, ... my opinion is that europe changed negatively when the jews left and the muslims came

Hey, jaaykke? When the fuck do you think the Jews went away? Are you under the impression that this happened at some other point in time? In effect, you're saying that Europe was better off pre-World War II than it is today, but you don't understand why we've referred to your comparison between 1930s Europe and 21st century Europe. Wow. Do us a favor — get out a history book, and look up the time period for World War II and the Holocaust. Then get back to us, you fucking dipshit. Or better yet, don't get back to us. And don't bother reading the history book. Since you don't seem capable of parsing sentences, just hit yourself over the head with the thing until you knock some sense into that lump of tapioca that you call your brain.

Then there's:

...europe was impacted negatively by a global ethnic population change.

Aside from your misuse of the word "global" (since this discussion has, as yet, been limited solely to the European region), this is substantially different from your statements thus far (despite no sign, as usual, of your acknowledging previous errors). You have not been asserting a negative impact on Europe brought about by "a" global ethnic population change — you have, this whole time, specified that the change is one of less Jews, more Muslims. Therefore, it is both logical and justifiable for us to specifically examine the comparison of Jews to Muslims, and your professed opinion of it. You can't weasel out of your bigotry by pretending this was never about your perceptions of Jews and Muslims, respectively; well, you can, feel free — but you'll just further support our assertion that you are a dishonest, hypocritical, irrational bigot.

maybe other factors contribute to make europe a better place today, overall, then it was in the 1930s, despite for that one negative change.

Your use of the phrase we've bolded is a dead giveaway of your clueless position and the idiocy that led you there. By asserting that this population exchange (Jews for Muslims — this discussion has, thus far, focused on no other change in European history) is a negative change — that is, it is one of your given assumptions — you are outright declaring that a change from Jews to Muslims is a negative one...universally and without ambivalence. By this logic, all Muslims are inferior to all Jews; which, of course, has been the basic position you have presented from the start, despite your furious and ineffective back-pedaling since. Omitting any qualifications from this declaration indicates that you are a bigot.

...you can tell me why you think europe did not undergo a negative population change from jewish to muslim. this has been my point all along, which you have never actualy addressed...

We've addressed this repeatedly, in every response we've offered — your inability to grasp our responses is by no means our fault or responsibility, imbecile. We agree that Europe underwent a change, because it is a matter of historical record and statistics. We do not, however, accept as a given that this was a "negative" change simply because we do not believe that a change from Jews to Muslims automatically qualifies as negative. More — and much more important — factors must be introduced before those of us with critical thinking abilities can arrive at the conclusion that the change of conditions in Europe has been a negative one. You have yet to introduce any (for instance, what the precise nature and results of this negative impact have been).

The change discussed thus far is one of census statistics alone. Any other change — whether regarding quality of living, economics, culture, education, or whatever — must be both proven to exist (which you haven't done) and, if you wish to support your incessant blathering, proven to be based on this statistical change in demographics (which you also haven't done).

In short, your latest comment (below) consists entirely of arguments which we've already addressed, barely tweaked (if at all) to accommodate your imminent escape plan from utter failure to present any comprehensive argument. If you want to see the answers to any of your incredibly stupid and repetitive assertions, you can simply go back to the other thread and read them there. If you want to shout about how we've refused to answer you, despite the fact that we have clearly done so, repeatedly, that's fine — we will happily and confidently rely on the intelligence of our other readers to examine the record and judge for themselves whether or not you have introduced any points that we haven't already refuted.

Now please go away. You are already relegated to the Urinal, and this is now the only thread in which you may continue to comment. If you continue to be an annoying ass, you will be banned. We fully expect that to happen within a day. Now fuck off, you ignorant fuck — Ed.]

— • —

[Below is jaaykke's latest comment — Ed.]

my opinion is not that conditions in europe overall are worse now then they were in the 1930s, though they may well be. I don't know. I don't live in europe now and i didn't live there in the 1930s. my opinion is also not that all jews are better then all muslims. (you deaf idiots)
my opinion is that europe changed negatively when the jews left and the muslims came, other factors not withstanding. maybe other factors contribute to make europe a better place today, overall, then it was in the 1930s, despite for that one negative change. i don't know.
it doesn't mean i pre-judge the muslim individual that i meet on the street. it doesn't mean anything about the muslim individual.
it means europe was impacted negatively by a global ethnic population change.
whenever you manage to pull your heads out of your asses, (though i am starting to think that this is something you are simply incapable of doing) you can tell me why you think europe did not undergo a negative population change from jewish to muslim. this has been my point all along, which you have never actualy addressed, much less made any sort of coherent or even slightly compelling argument against.
simply put, for you who seem to have the intelectual capacity of a sleeping dog, yes, i do think there is a connection between all the jews who contribute and all the muslims who destroy. if you don't think so, then you have no historical perspective of jews, who have contributed to the world, and continue to do so, in completely disproportianate percentages compared to their global population, and you have no perspective of modern day islam, which holds the entire western world in their terrifying grip. i don't think it could be just one or two bad ones giving the rest of them a bad rap for this to happen.
i don't think this means every jew is better then every muslim.
out of curiosity, what percentage would be compelling to you? 100%? only if 100% of jews were good and 100% of muslims were bad would it then be valid to say that the change in population was bad? are you so stupid and small-minded?

[Moved from the Polar Opposites post as Brad is a run-of-the-mill mindless dipshit. By the way, moron, Robear and BD don't maintain this site. The people signing their comments with "from the Two Percent Company" do. Hard to sort out, even for a big martial artist/medical scientist like yourself, we know. Also by the way, no one has to look that closely at the screen to find your abundant spelling errors. Most of them (like "looser") jump right out at us — Ed.]

ouch hit me where it hurts my spelling , hey your right i don't have the best spelling do i care (no) is there any thing anyone could say that would sink in (no) so how does disecting what people say make you any more intelligent? hey i bet your reading close to the screen to try and find a spelling mistake am i right looser? you twist your biast arguments to your pile of crap writing anyway so why not well have some fun and put my point across to. Im happy to go one on one and argue with you without swearing and cursing but you dont have the heart for that hey its cool americans dont have the ticker aussies do so dont feel to bad buddy! so you study philosphy what a load of crap and history well done you really are making the way up in this world .Would you like me to go on about what i study and the martial arts i've been doing for years? and im well aware of your big words being a medical science and physiotherapy student here in aus , but id expect that from a whinging yank! come to aus will show you what having a heart is really like! or should i say yanks go on disect that bitch! you see in australia you dont have to be the worlds best speller to have brains but hey congrats on your big words you obviously have nothing better to do and sure i belive you when you say you have all those commitments and still run a site like this that should be used for nothing more than to wipe your ass with. hey disect this line for fun and your obviously a massive nerd and yes your vocab is prob better than mine could i give a shit spending 6 hours a night going over my blog ahhhhh no . why cause i have a life catcha ya later you yanky fuckwits, have fun disecting that bitch!

[Sadly, but not unexpectedly, Dipshit Donny was unable to address any of our arguments in his latest reply. Instead he claims to have read the entire thread on which he commented (though he admits to "skimming" our response), and somehow missed the fact that the "points" he made in his comment have been posted and answered almost verbatim in the very thread he claims to have read. Sure, Donny. We believe you.

In addition, he followed the fuckheaded Troll manual into the next chapter by calling our insults ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack would suggest that we asserted, for example, that any points Donny made are invalid because he is an idiot. The reality is, quite simply, reversed: we're confident that he is an idiot because he made no valid points (see the evidence there, Donny?). This is the standard Ignorant Troll mistake of thinking that ad hominem means "insult," when it more accurately means "insult used for the specific purpose of debunking a point entirely unrelated to the insult."

We'd already debunked your bullshit, Donny, and then subsequently insulted you. And guess what? We can do it every time, asshole. (There it was.) If you'd like to insult us, feel free...but do it without tackling our actual arguments, and it's kind of hollow and empty. We, on the other hand, did address your arguments. Every one. Every time. See the difference, Donny? Probably not.

The rest of Donny's comment is nothing but empty insults with no content whatsoever. As usual, he has showcased his arrogant ignorance quite effectively. Thanks, Donny, for being such a smug fuck that you admit that you're willing to engage others in discussion and yet ignore anything they say. Notice that we have consistently answered every point you have made, whether we felt it valid or not. We hope our regular readers aren't getting too tired of us actually being able and willing to counter all of the Troll's asinine points, and the Troll being completely unable and unwilling to even address any of ours.

In short: Donny has been moved to the Urinal. Any future comments from him will be moved here, until and unless we decide to just ban his stupid, smug, smarmy ass. His unedited reply is below — the Management.]

— • —

Even better.

Yes, I actually read the whole series on this rant. But, of course, you've proven me an idiot with your vapid attacks. I didn't attack your first response to me line by line; you're right. I got bored reading it, to be honest.

I've read some more of your rants, and I'm a bit disappointed. I think your previous commentary was much more "scientific" than your attack on me. There was, tucked in little corners among your predominantly ad hominem rhetorical screamings, some very reasonable stuff, but I'm glad that science also has some respectable spokesmen out there (f not here).

Keep up the good work, providing science to the ignorant, one expletive at a time.

[This comment was originally posted on European Racism Version 2.0, but as there was no content beyond a simplistic insult, we moved it here. How come the people who disagree with us most always lack the brains to actually make a case to counter our positions? Discuss — Ed.]

Your site sucks cocks and so do you.

Fuck Islam.

It took me a good part of the morning to go through all of the urinal. I just found your site and just read the Allison Dubois Rant. Wholeheartedly agree with your findings and opinions. As for the loons that I found here on the Urinal, I find that they feel important and relevant as long as they can keep going on and on. I bet they let it rule their whole day. It was a fun read though. Ever since emailsfromcrazypeople shut down I didn't know where to find a healthy dose of cray-cray. You guys are doing a great job at keeping it contained and educating the rest of us in the process...educating me, at least.

I don't know if I like that my first post at 2% is in the Urinal, but I had to agree with JustLookin. I was trapped by the craziness of this thread, but the ~Capri posts especially might qualify as some of the funniest stuff I've ever read on the net. And th Aussie who can't speak English? Just priceless!