Mr. Knight’s Shining Armour Provided By Botany 500
There are few things in life that will cost you more Man Points than locking your keys in your car. Running for any reason is one of those things because men do not run. We take care of business with due diligence and direction, but also without a flagrant lack of self respect. Unless we’re talking about last call here. In that case running is totally fine.
Holding the door open for another man instead of flipping it outwards at the last second? Yep, that will cost you even more Man Points than running. And fumbling in your pocket for your keys at the car instead of having them out well before hand would be even worse.
One of the most flagrant fouls and most expensive of loses of Man Points, however, would be not locking your own keys in your car, but someone else’s. And that is exactly what I did this weekend in a Hindenburg sized catastrophe of burning Man Points. Angels wept and the heavens opened forth in shame as the door’s vacuum seal closed shut behind me. Truly I have never felt so bad.
Thank goodness they don’t let women work at the Auto Club — or else we’d all still be sitting in the fucking parking lot waiting for the lady locksmith to unlose herself.
Much to my surprise when I checked with the Auto Club I found they have no official anti-women hiring policies on the books. They also denied having any such tacit practices of gender discrimination. Peculiar, I thought. Then why is it that a woman will never get out of the tow truck with the weekend saving Slim Jim or with the magic box of Energon to resurrect a dead battery that has been pumping after hours “Jamz” in the local Community College parking lot?
The reason can’t be that women don’t know shit about cars. Women don’t know shit about law, politics, or sex and that doesn’t keep them from being lawyers, politicians or sexually abusive high school teachers all over the news recently — even though they suck at all three of them (Man Pun intended). So why are there no women in the Auto Club?
I’ve come to the conclusion that women don’t believe in the Auto Club. Much in the same way that men do not believe in the tooth fairy or talking cheese or tantric sex. To women the idea of an auto assistance association is pure fantasy. The theory does more than explain why women never pick up the fucking phone and call for a tow themselves. Sure she could call, but in her mind that would be like writing a letter to Santa Claus. If anything came of it, it would just be a coincidence.
Women don’t believe in the Auto Club because none of them have solved a problem in their entire lives. They think the entire process of fixing what is broken is all in the realm of mysticism and fantasy and, if they were ever inclined, would look for manuals on car repair in the perpetually bankrupt bookstore in the old part of town between the forgotten tombs of “Increase Your Goddess Power With Crystals” and “Lose Twenty Pounds Talking About How Fucking Great Yoga Is”.
Nagging someone until they put a sweater on doesn’t count as solving a problem. It’s not even preemptively problem solving. It’s just being a pain in the ass. A woman solving a problem is a woman shouting obnoxiously while letting her disaster fixed imagination run wild and calling herself Mary Poppins all the fucking while while everyone else did the opposite. If there was a women’s version of the Auto Club, it would be some crazy broad making a daily stop at your house to shackle a ten pound iron ball with your car keys super glued to the side to your ankle.
Viable. That’s another word that no woman has ever known or used.
Related Articles:
Sure they did, I have an Aunt that helped and Hitler had women working because of the man shortage. That was before feminism and the government needed women for other purposes than destroying families. Today women get their nails dirty? Ha, how dare you to suggest such. Women were much better people way back before feminism reared it’s ugly mug.
Most women suck as people
If you take a look into history. In 1942 women built the B-17 Bomber at the Douglas Aircraft Company.
Why is she still allowed on here?
–Strength and Honor–
Fuck off, Female.
-Dick
Sonyad, I think that is the first time any male here has acknowledged that or regretted it. That is very admirable of you. Thank you.
lol, yes they do. Especially when you call steering wheels, pretzels. Re: your own rudeness, maybe it was unwarranted, maybe it wasn’t, I can’t remember. Most of the time you seem sweet. I hope you don’t take that as demeaning, it isn’t.
Female posters to this blog tend to be shown little quarter. Female especially has had rudeness thrust upon her here. This is regrettable.
I like to think I, at least, am not unwarrantedly rude most of the time. However, my powers of jest and mockery exceed that of run of the mill mortal.
You’re entitled to your views, and I support you posting them here if that’s your desire. I don’t think it should be, as I don’t think the views you are expressing show you in a good light. The rest is up for others to debate.
-wolfe
Right. I’ve only just seen this rudeness.
No, you’re the idiot. I didn’t say you would take the discussion there so that you could use mod powers to influence the discussion. Rather, if you cared to read correctly, then you would realise that what I said was that it may appear that way if you moved the discussion there.
Come again? Something about unwarranted criticism? How ironic. And I didn’t even criticise you.
Are you sure?
Ever heard of two feet and a heartbeat? Use ‘em.
No, again, you come across as an idiot because if you care to reread my post, you would perhaps realise that I didn’t even criticise Biff! Jesus.
Sick of these constant bloody attacks from you.
Yeah I’ve been away a day or two.
OK first. Biff. Thanks for your service. That is a fact I’ve never heard, and I’ve friends who fly Apaches, but admittedly few ground-pounders. Yes here’s a new thread on Politik is where this must go.
Female, you’re an idiot if you think I’ll use Politik as moderator to have any more influence. I bend over backwards to be fair to the opposition there. Did I or did I not institute a set of rules that I asked (and Dick agreed) all to abide by to refrain from attacking you there?
It’s insulting, and, were I a woman, it would be hurtful, to have you criticizing me in that baseless fashion. As a man, I can take it, but I might need a beer. Or tea.
Now, Female, you came off as an idiot when you criticized Biff; sorry you did. That said, you came off as a polite and respectful idiot so no one — even Dick — should trash you. Your postings recently have become more respectful and logical and should be respected as such. But please, please, strive to make them so. Think… ‘would I still do this at 7am?’ whenever you post.
That said, the idea of retreating and using snipers? Trust me, you don’t know much about how war works, and it’s a good thing you weren’t in command.
Biff: thanks for the support on the Vincennes incident.
Yeah, further talk on this topic needs to go to http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/post-5062.htm#5062
-wolfe (hoping this displays ok, I seem to have crashed Dick’s interpreter)
Dont ask me. Parachuting pandas and detonating dolphins are your area of expertise Fem.
Sorry Big Al, but dolphins are involved. Ask Geeza if you don’t believe me.
Also female Viet Cong fighters were probably involved in war long before any American female military officers graduated, and I don’t think feminism in Vietnam had much, if anything, to do with it. Some women would be capable in war..I may not be one of them, though out of necessity, I probaby could be, hopefully that will never happen. In any case, each to her own.
A man wouldn’t think of doing that, Fem. Because the crew is like, you know, in a TANK.
No shit?
That’s why when it comes to the shooting part of war, Fem, they don’t generally let women get involved. Some women think that’s not a good idea.
They don’t let pandas and dolphins get involved, either.
For much the same reasons.
-Big Al
Also,
That is unbelievably sick. Thank you for sharing that but I am totally shocked and disturbed.
Okay. I think I would have turned the tanks around and retreated, then if possible, from the side, sent out snipers to shoot those driving the tanks. Though, I’m not sure how to get a bullet through the armoured metal. Maybe shoot through the drivers window. If possible, I would call a satellite to send jamming signals to the enemies tanks to get them to stop and be incapable of firing.
If retreat wasn’t an option and the only option was to either not fire and then get myself blown up, or fire and kill the civilians and tanks….OMG, that is the worst moral dilemma I have ever come across…I think human instinct to preserve oneself would override the cognitions that you were also about to kill civilians, in which case, there is no blame or dishonour in that.
God, if you had to make that decision and do that Biff, I am truly sorry, how unbelievably awful.
dudu, dudu, du, du, du.
Come home from where? If you are suggesting Iraq, then that would be inappropriate because the US launched the attack there; they didn’t get invited to go there by the UN to help the country out.
Sure, if they were invited to help out and just ended up causing more problems or if they simply decided to help out voluntarily, with a similar result, then yes, they should leave. But that wasn’t the case. If they leave Iraq now, you will find that the problem which is trying to be contained will spread further afield. Then there really will be something strange in your neighbourhood….hmmm, is that why you have an artillery bunker?
I am responding with the full anticipation wolfe will move this to Politik.
It has been said the only thing limiting the US military is the US military. The main reason Bagdad is still standing is not from a lack of ability but rather a lack of command. America’s enemies do not have this same level of internal control.
As an American who served in the Army it is frustrating to hear our missions denigrated in world opinion and by the American press. I know first hand the lengths our soldiers go to limit civilian damage. In Somolia’s “blackhawk down” incident one possible easy solution would have been to bring in armour and start making ever-widening circles around the downed aircraft. Continue until proper fields of fire exist. Imagine the peripheral damage? As a result that option was not even considered. In fact heavy armour was not even brought in because of possible civilian harm.
During the end of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict the remaining Republican Guard started to tie kurdish women and kids to their tanks so we would not fire on them. The heat signature of a person stood out in sharp relief to the turret at 2km. It was quite evident what they were doing. The thermal images confirmed what our intel was telling us. The T-72 has an engagement range of 1.7km and they were coming toward us. Ethically I had every right to order the fire command. Any civilian casualties would have been the fault of those animals who put them in harms way. I really want to know, (anyone) what would you have done in that situation?
To me the navy captain who ordered the missle strike against an unknown (possibly hostile) aircraft quickly approaching was in a similar situation. He had about 30 seconds to make the call. If he is wrong his ship and all crew face what was a preventable attack. In a perfect world he could have monitored the civilian air traffic control and asked who was flying in his direction. But he did not and had to make decisions based on available intel. It was the epitomy of shortsightedness not to have that capability. The fault lies more with the instigators than with those reacting.
The problem is bigger than simple soldiers on the ground making difficult choices. The foundational problem is: should the US be involved in the first place. My answer is absolutely not. That includes Rowanda, that includes Kosovo. Any more I don’t care how many burned and mangled corpses they show on the evening news. Some idiot somewhere made a stupid mistake that caused the issue du jur, and it wasn’t me.
Even now with Israel and whoever doing whatever the cry has gone up for the US to do something. Someone explain how a couple groups of people killing each other over a land mass smaller than New Jersey is my problem? Why yes, that does suck. But it does not answer why I should be involved.
Bottom line: I would like nothing more than for the US military to take about a week to say goodbye and come home en mass. Likewise the UN can take about a week to pack up and find a home elsewhere cause the US ain’t playing any more. If anyone needs help they can call…
Shut the fuck up, Female.
-Dick
If you are the Mod of that forum, it may be perceived as biased if you move it there. Would be better to keep the discussion here in order to maintain impartiality and neutrality and avoid what may be unwarranted claims of Forum bias/censorship etc.
Yes, I admitted that my knowledge of history, or wars, in particular is pretty sparse.
A man told me the other day that Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq, so that when Saddam invaded, he was attempting to take back Iraqi oil fields.
Like I said, I’m pretty ignorant in this area. My knowledge of 1990 war extends to Jarhead and the Three Kings.
Luka: I 50-75% agree with you, hence my reference to the US’s deplorable Latin American policies. The past propping-up or Noriega fits into that. You’re quite right: I shouldn’t have cavalierly said “ditto” on the ‘good guys winning’. I still lean to the view that Panama was a + on strategic and local terms, but I’d agree that the history of US intervention was indeed a mess. It was a weak point for me at best, and one I shouldn’t have made. Thanks for calling me on it.
Sony, what you say is silly. The sarcasm isn’t appreciated.
No it wasn’t remotely chivalry and honour. It was wrong, deeply so. At best it was a horrible mistake. You know I’m not arguing that it was chivalry and honour so I don’t know why you put those words in my mouth.
The US does a lot of wrong, though we probably disagree on what some of that is.
Yes, the USN and the Royal Navy are generally ‘forces for good’. Doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes, or do bad things.
The world would be worse without America; yeah, I believe that. If you choose not to, that’s your lookout. That said, most of her actions are founded in self-interest; some of them enlightened, some of them rather rapacious. Altruism? To some degree, such as the Marshall plan. But not very common, just as it isn’t very common with any country.
Americans can be bad-guys; people that are anti-American can be good guys. Quel surprise.
That said, yes, there is a sense of American Exceptionalism or the ’shining city on the hill’ as Reagan memorably (re)phrased it in Americans’ minds and in my mind that’s going to color American views. I can see you being very annoyed by that; I can see Australians, Britons, Canadians, and many others being quite annoyed. Fair enough.
I’m sorry you have to resort to sarcasm in our discussion, especially over such a sad incident. And if you want to talk about walking around points, well, you did just that.
Anyway, I won’t further discuss the matter here; I’ll repost to Politik if there are any further responses.
-wolfe
It’s so corny using P. S.
Wolfe. There’s really no point arguing with you. It really is an exercise in futility. Please, just drop it. You win. It was an act of chivalry and honour. Appropriate and called for. The US has not and can not do any wrong. All her actions are founded in altruism, good will towards men and generally fine intentions. HMNavy and the USNavy are ‘forces of good’. Americans are the ‘good guys’. Only non-Americans that are not America’s ‘friends’ and allies can be ‘bad guys’. The worlds would be a horrible place without America, etc. What ever you wish to add.
I am weary of all this stating the obvious only to have have to debate it with you as well.
You did say somewhere there would be no lost respect to be restored. Anyway.
I should have known better then to debate politics with an American. It’s a lose, lose situation.
Best regards.
“P. S.” (derogatory quote) I think the people of the island of Granada were grateful to the US as well. And the student hostages.
Sorry Wolfe, but I have to disagree with you on Panama. Having studied Latin American politics I can say that the way the US acted with regards to Panama was appalling.
The good guys did not ‘win’ during the invasion of Panama - the ‘good guys’ only wanted Noreiga out (to ‘bring him to justice’) because he wasn’t doing what they wanted him to do. Noreiga had been on CIA payroll for a considerable amount of time before they ousted him - he supported and organised US efforts in Nicaragua, helping the contras to bring down the regime there. The US knew about his drug-trafficking and money laundering and the fact that he was fixing elections even while they were working with him… and they allowed the dictator to stay in power because he was their runner boy.
The US gave four reasons for the invasion but they were all dubious (for reasons I am not going to go into here) and they were all mere excuses for going in there and kicking Noriega’s ass. And kick his ass they did. They did so with little care for civilians and it was said to be one of the most violent and brutal invasion at that time since Vietnam.
I don’t have a problem with the US intervening, I have a more a problem with US hypocrisy. The US preach ideals of democracy, justice, and peace - but what they really mean is they want democracy, justice, and peace on their terms and only when it suits their best interests. In the case of Panama, they were fine with Noriega’s regime in Panama while he was their lap-dog, but the moment he stepped out of line, Noriega is turned into international criminal #1 … the US didn’t give a damn about the Panamanian people - they cared only to control Panama and to secure control over Latin America as a whole - not to mention the financial implications too.
Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe when US takes military action against a country that they are doing it for the good of that country, or for humanitarian issues. I think a lot of the time we are sold humanitarian reasons because we cannot swallow the idea that war is actually declared on grounds of greed, power and territory. I think this annoys me also because it is insulting to the intelligence when you are being lied to, especially when the lies are so badly disguised. I can almost forgive being lied to if the lie is credible, but I find it intolerable when I am fed a bad lie and being expected to believe it.
Again, this should be in Politik. If the discussion continues, I’ll move it there.
wolfe: ‘I really believe it is a binary choice of US involvement in the world vs. a radical drawing back.’
That’s a very fair comment. Many (perhaps most?) Americans feel the same way. Certainly Biff does. I don’t. I view the world as being in the Siege of Vienna, circa 1529. I may be mistaken to do so; I may also be mistaken in the positive effects the Americans can have, and, finally I may be gravely mistaken on the horrible price we are prepared to pay as a country.
Offhand:
- the Revolution — the Bill of Rights remains one of the great documents of mankind.
- The Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.
- The Spanish-American War. People were freed, including slaves. Heck, Cuba became malaria-free. Go go USArmy.
- The Mexican and Indian wars solved things, so refute your point as to “messier and entrenched” but were hardly great examples of US benevolence. Quite the contrary in the latter case.
- WWI. Yeah, I guess Wilsonian idealism was stupid. It beat what anyone else had to offer though.
- WWII. We agree on this. Amazing.
- Korea. Visit the country if you don’t believe me. The difference made possible by the US in North vs South Korea (after a horrible US diplomatic bungle) is stunning.
- Grenada. Yeah, a pathetic little war, but the good guys won.
- Panama. Ditto, though the US deserves culpability for its very dubious ‘Munroe Doctrine’-backed Latin American policies.
- Kuwait. A no brainer, even if it was a war for oil. Again, helped along by stunning US diplomatic incompetence.
- Yugoslavia. The jury’s still out, but I think US intervention there helped things. It certainly didn’t make them worse.
With respect Anon, your view is entirely legitimate. Your knowledge of history is either biased or altogether lacking.
On the whole ‘foster war’ and support peace thing where we ‘can’t have it both ways’, sorry this is a very naive view. If the above isn’t enough food for thought, I’ll be glad to take this up with you in Politik. Usual rules, you’ll be treated with respect and not banned unless Dick wants to fire me.
Take care,
-wolfe
Take the latest middle east crisis, which, I have been following scantily, I think I read the other day that the US are supplying Israel with more weapons, while today I read that Bush is calling for humanitarian aid for Southern Lebanon. If this is true, this is what the world finds difficult to stomach - that the US seems to both foster war, then try and make it look as if it is actually against it and trying to help. You just can’t have it both ways.
This should be in Politik. Oh well. Sorry Dick.
If you don’t believe that the USN was a significant part of what brought the Soviets to their knees, then, well, obviously we think very differently. This was not a fallacious assertion; the USN was, in my view, a vital part of the solution.
Off-hand, the following things helped lead to the end of Soviet domination over eastern Europe. You’d certainly have a better perspective than I on the internal politics, and what happened in your country, but I respectfully submit you are missing at least one element of Grand Strategy.
- SDI as a psychological threat to intimidate the Soviets into believing their vaunted nuclear leverage might be no more,
- The Helsinki accords as a critical influence on hearts and minds in occupied countries
- The ability of the United States for the first time since 1945 to project power via the USN right into the White Sea, and right to Vladivostock as she chose This was huge. It threatened an end to Soviet adventurism in Africa, central America, and elsewhere. It rendered the USSR supremely vulnerable to tactical (non-nuclear) US forces.
- The general revitalization of capitalist democracies in the West in the wake of the post-Vietnam syndrome and the realization that Keynes and Khrushchev were wrong.
- Gorbachev himself, in making the honorable decision not to use violence to suppress the Baltics
- To some degree, the rhetoric of Reagan and Thatcher.
- Solidarity in Poland.
- Other regional leaders who were persuaded that Communism wasn’t merely a weak horse, it was a dead horse.
No, I didn’t mean that. I don’t think what I wrote implied that, but if it did, then I apologize. That said, neutering that Captain, given the facts (see my post), would have badly damaged the morale and capability of the USN at a very critical juncture in the Cold War.
By removing one of the key factors in demolishing the Soviet Empire, it would have, in my belief, potentially lead to another few years of Soviet occupation. That doesn’t mean that proposing to (say) dismiss the Captain or charge him means you support Soviet occupation, far from it. If you read that into what I wrote, then, again, I’m very sorry. As a victim of the Soviets, along with your beloved country, I don’t think for a nanosecond you back them. I do, nevertheless, believe that would have been one of the consequences.
You may argue I am wrong; fair enough. Please don’t argue that I am arguing fallaciously or raising straw men. I’m not.
We agree on many things. The shootdown was wrong. There are a list of facts suggesting incompetent strategic command at the highest levels of the USN, to say nothing of the ludicrousness of an AEGIS cruiser having to handle terrorist gunboat attacks on innocent civilians.
I’m glad you’ve posted further on this. It’s restored my respect for you, now that I better understand your position. I just wish you could understand mine.
Best,
-wolfe
sonyad said:
You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, can you tell me what the gem was?
wolfe, I almost feel it would be preferable if the US did exactly that. I don’t know very much about wars but it seems that everytime they go somewhere to fix a mess (with the exception of WW2) wars just become messier and more entrenched.
Take the latest middle east crisis, which, I have been following scantily, I think I read the other day that the US are supplying Israel with more weapons, while today I read that Bush is calling for humanitarian aid for Southern Lebanon. If this is true, this is what the world finds difficult to stomach - that the US seems to both foster war, then try and make it look as if it is actually against it and trying to help. You just can’t have it both ways.
It was not your raising of the issue of Soviet hegemony that ticked me off. That’s historical fact.
It was your fallacious assertion of any merit or worthiness on the part of the USN for Europe not (still) being under Soviet hegemony.
And to add insult to injury, your blended (be it rhetorical) claim that, melodrama yours and emphasis mine, crucifying the USN is congruent to preferring, and intrinsically being approving of, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
Very quickly, I appreciate Sony posting this, though he didn’t have to. No, ‘lefty’ doesn’t equate to anti-American, and it’s quite right to call America on the things she does badly — slavery, the horrific treatment of aboriginals, especially the Cherokee Nation, to name just three.
And the killing of 60+ innocent children (and over 200 people total) over the Persian Gulf.
I didn’t raise this as a defence tactic, and I didn’t — and don’t — consider Sony anti-American.
My raising the issue of Soviet domination was obviously highly offensive to Sony. Given that, I’m somewhat sorry I raised it in the fashion I did. Believe me, it was not raised as a straw man or chimera. I raised it knowing well his country had suffered terribly under brutal tyranny for decades, but if I’d spent longer thinking about it, I might have held back, powerful and correct argument though I very sincerely believe it to be.
As I’ve said, I’ve friends and family serving in the USN. I’ve studied centuries worth of Naval history, and even lectured on it. I did not choose my words lightly.
I don’t see this, because I share Sony’s view that the downing was wrong. Medals shouldn’t have been awarded to the officers. George H.W. Bush said a stupid and spiteful thing when he said he’d never apologize for America.
What points did I “walk around”? I’d be happy to address them in the appropriate thread.
On the factual points, Sony, check Wikipedia perhaps. There’s another good (Iranian site) on the matter. It’s very mildly biased against the US I think, but it bends over backwards to try to be fair. I’ll send you the URL if you are interested.
As for non sequiturs, it was not my intent to employ them. Having agreed that the downing of the aircraft, and the death of 60-odd innocent children and 200-odd innocent people was wrong, I didn’t see it as being sensible to dispute other details.
I did and do sincerely believe that the Captain couldn’t be keelhauled for what he did, for it would tend to castrate the US Navy.
Perhaps Sony views this as a non-sequitur or perhaps he genuinely doesn’t grasp my point of view (one which I strongly believe is correct).
To the contrary, I felt Sony ‘walked around’ the core of my argument and ignored it. With 20 or 30 paragraphs, he chose to bold and underline a single sentence and announce an end to the discussion he had begun.
Yes, I was disappointed. I’m appreciative that he chose to amplify here.
Sony says he’d share my ‘biased’ views if he were in my place. I guess that’s some comfort.
I in turn can offer him comfort by noting that almost certainly most of the planet would agree with him and not with me.
That said, be careful what you wish for. I really believe it is a binary choice of US involvement in the world vs. a radical drawing back. I think the US is nearing a tipping point of doing the latter.
-wolfe
I see.
There is at least one confirmed instance of you posting by two distinct names from the same ip.
Female, Anon, whoever you are and whatever pseudonym you chose to go by. If you feel you’re competent to add courteous and pertinent contribution to the relevant thread then, by all means, do. I personally am of the opinion that you are not and can not.
However, if I am wrong but you can’t be bothered to register a name on the forums to said end at least try to preserve a courteous, non-presumptuous manner when spamming.
Having already decided on spamming I see no choice but to implicate myself as wll by reciprocation because it would be more severely inappropriate on my part not to answer your direct interpellations on the subject.
This statement is presumptuous as wll as being plain stupid. However, let me try to elaborate.
Wolfe. The first time I came across http://www.dailykos.com was when I googled for more in depth writings regarding this incident. I did not know it was a ‘lefty’ site. OR anti-American, for that matter. In retrospect, the name and that banner they have over there seems rather indicative.
I did not set out seeking to convey a leftist point of view simply because anti-American groups use it as basis for their ‘propaganda’.
However, neither does being ‘lefty’ mean one is anti-American nor vice versa. In the case of this site you might be right to interchange labels though I don’t think the article itself, in particular, can actually be viewed as skewed to the left. It seems more than reasonably objective to me. A lot more anyway, than I could probably say about the US Navy. Had I found a report of theirs on the downing.
Also, calling America on the ills it does (as opposed to the fictitious ones) is not the same with being anti-American. Neither is resenting plain wrong things that America and Americans say or do. I find many Americans too easily resort to labeling as anti-American as a defence tactic. That is to say I should not be labelled as such for my stance on the downing of IA655. My stance on the incident is neither leftist, nor anti-American. It is simply the right stance. Nor should I be labelled as such for quoting what people likely rightfully deem as leftist skewed, biased sources that happened to break with principle and write the truth on occasion.
If I were to affirm, for example, that all Americans are at fault and therefore to blame for spawning and supporting the NRA and NOW, then yes. I could rightfully be labelled as decidedly anti-American. Especially since ’second amendment lobbyist’ or NOW like groups have not at all significantly intruded into my existence nor trampled my quality of life. Yet.
Wolfe had previously stated and showcased his aversion to leftist sources and points of view. By all means, I would have avoided using such sources precisely to make my argument less prone to logical, reasonable attack, if not for plain mistake. I respect that and I am sorry that one of the informal sources I used happened to be http://www.dailykos.com.
Again: just because someone, or more, are decidedly biased against the US and consistently generate false positives in terms of accusations and blaming of the US does not preclude them from having true positives once in awhile. The truth when told by a confirmed liar does not make it any less true.
There were some points I made Wolfe walked cleanly around, just writing nothing about or unspecifically contradicting using non sequitur (some things were completelly unrelated to the matter at hand, just as what ticked me off) and what I view as completely false arguments. As if I hadn’t written them at all. All without citing sources, and getting emotional. Indicative of him not having taken the time to read and analyze them thoroughly. At least not at first. I have read all of his, several times. Incredulously, I might add.
Though getting weary of the exercise in futility that that discussion represented, I realistically did not envision overturning wolfe’s strong convictions, I did have the resolve to continue mustering pertinent replies to his rebukes of the thread’s premise with largely. That was until he sprang that latest gem on me. I took it personally, and still do, so.
I do not attribute him malintent, however. That said malintent is not a prerequisite to successfully causing offence.
Wolfe’s views are understandably biased and strongly so. I would most likely share his views, being in his place.
Sure. It’s your turn to admit you jumped the gun in the forums and rather than literally interpret wolfe’s statement about Russian domination of Europe, you chose to see his statement as evidence of American egocentricity.
It wasn’t a publicity stunt, I don’t even see how that can be interpreted as one. wolfe is correct in explaining it is a non-offensive substitution.
Pardon? I don’t understand what you are saying. That’s the shortened version, I’m not writing it out in full everytime I use it.
‘Jebus’ is actually a well known convention/word to use as a substitution. Doing so avoids giving offense to those of religious faith who take the second/third commandment very seriously.
-wolfe
My turn to what? To whom? With whom? Could you be more explicit?
I believe the name is Jesus. The ‘B’ key is quite removed from the ‘S’ key on the keyboard so I will assume intent. Please try and refrain from such publicity stunts when they are inappropriate and out of bounds.
Also, if I may inconvenience you so far as to ask that you refrain from using that abbreviation for post scriptum. Such light use of it is akin to children’s writing.
Okay by this I meant I was due to give you an apology, not that you were due to thank me.
Jebus. *wipes sweat from brow*
P.S. Sonyad, it’s your turn now.
Thanks, it was due.
Yes, I can’t understand how *cough* she can be so good at reading fine print and so shite at reading the posts on this site. It’s just crazy.
Er. yes. I don’t think ‘often’ is the right word. I prefer, ’sometimes.’
Wow. Do you? I’m not so sure.
I can’t remember what they are, no matter, I think you’ll get your wish.
Thank you Luka. Goes without saying, but hey, well-deserved.
Formal thank you, Anon.
Here is what I will say about Female.
She says crazy silly things. But she is ultimately fairly honest (though it often takes intense reflection and time).
I think she can add value to this site, though I wish she woudln’t post for reasons I’ve already adumbrated. (No, I don’t mean enumerated, I mean adumbrated.)
Best to all,
-wolfe
Yes Luka, you are right. It seems wolfe thought I was supporting astromuffy’s comment that he was a liar, and in retaliation called me a cretinous cow.
I didn’t see the “liar” comment and do not support it. I am sorry. An apology isn’t needed.
One should always consider Hanlon’s Razor when dealing with women. I find It saves a lot of frustration in the long run.
Female, if you have changed your identity so many times can you blame wolfe for mistaking another poster for you? Even if he did so incorrectly, I still think you are being a bit irrational getting so upset and demanding he give you an apology.
Why does he need to give you an apology? If you keep changing your identity eventually someone will confuse you with new posters if they resemble you in some way and that is your fault not the fault of wolfe. If you have a track-record of this kind of behaviour then you bring this kind of situation upon yourself.
It seems to me that you are blaming and attacking wolfe for your own actions. I don’t think that is being fair on your part.
Check the man-hash. Your assumption is correct.
If you can’t see then you are either ignorant, stupid or being deliberately obtuse or you may well possibly be blinded by your own indignation or sense of righteousness.
You were right to apologise to Muffy for your character assassination of her if she is indeed less educated and unable to engage in debate, though not for want of trying. You gain 5 man points, bringing your sum total to date to - 999, 999.95. Still in the red.
What you do not see is that I was not advising you that you owed muffy an apology, but that you owed Female an apology.
You specifically typed, “Female, why do you act like such an idiot?” effectively believing that she and astromuffy were one and the same, and thus calling Female a cretinous cow and an idiot. You also attacked myself without explanation, advising all readers that “astromuffy and anon are….far worse.”
Who are you to judge and slander other posters? And where do you get off not acknowledging that you have done this? Nor apologising for it? I have noticed you often like to state that it is not the poster you are attacking, but their argument. I fail to see where you apply this in practice towards Female or myself.
And Shakespeare? What exactly are you trying to say?
If astromuffy called you a liar, then fair enough you have a right to defend yourself against that and maybe try and exercise some maturity and not resort to name-calling.
Now, you can come back to me with an apology for “equally silly cow”.
I shan’t hold my breath.
I don’t. As for still the same in reverse, in terms of your annoyance, certainly. In terms of being logically identical? No. And no weasling.
What you’re missing here is that I simply ask for a clarity of thought and expression that is altogether lacking from both you, Muffy and Female (I assume you are Female, but I don’t know). Things are phrased in a muddy and unclear fashion, that, at its best, is almost right. At its worst, it’s risibly wrong.
Come back to me with your apologies (or comments) when you’ve read carefully the post where she called me a liar, and I responded with what Biff aptly noted as “Google Fu”.
Best,
-wolfe
I see, you’re still at the level of name calling. That’s fine, you insufferable prat.
?? Still the same in reverse, “Professor”.
You called Female a cretinous cow, thinking that was who astromuffy was.
Your posts might also have more honesty if you didn’t try and weasel out of what you actually say.
No, you equally silly cow, I suggested she might be. Moreover I suggested Astromuffy was Female, not the reverse.
(I had to laugh when I saw you backing up her “logic”).
She owes me an apology for calling me a liar or did you miss that little tidbit? I called her a cretinous cow after being called a liar. Your posts might have more honesty if you noted such facts.
I tend to be fairly polite to women on this site — though I admit sometimes I’m in a bad/tired mood, and I am less courteous. That said, I think I’m considerably more courteous than, say, Dick.
Astromuffy resembles Female in that both would attempt bizarre inane (often psychology-based) citations that were ludicrous attempts at injecting pseudo-science into a debate. Astromuffy even lied about this, denying my google fu. (I’ll link the thread if I have to.
Female also somewhat poisoned the well of my acceptance at this site by repeatedly showing up in different guises to throw more chaos into the mix.
I would owe an apology to Astromuffy for *one* thing and it would be conditional. It is possible — barely possible — that she was genuinely attempting to be logical, rational, and use good science. That would mean that she was either poorly educated, incompetent, or stupid, but neither devious nor malicious.
I have trouble believing this, given her behaviour. Malice seems a given.
If, however, she was genuinely attempting to engage in rational dialogue, then I’m sorry I mistook her stupidity/lack of education/incompetence for malice.
-wolfe
You thought Female was astromuffy. You owed her an apology for mischaracterisation, calling her a cretinous cow and more. You didn’t give it or admit you were wrong. You have just insulted Anon.
Your opinion is now worth less than zero.
Actually Samantha and Alex aren’t that bad. Astromuffy and Anon (both bearing a suspicious resemblance to a panda-loving dolphin-marrying person from our antipode) are much worse.
The racist thing came about when I pointed out she had (I totally accept her characterization of it as inadvertant) linked a neo-Nazi hosted site. She stated she was unaware; I believe her.
Sam, sorry you got the somewhat undeserved (other than being a woman posting on this site) force of Dick Masterson. If you do indeed F-off the site, you seemed a reasonable representative of your gender. Take care.
-wolfe
Technically, he wrote and you’re reading, and viceversa, and so on. Flatulence does not confer well via TCP/IP.
DICK said:
Then I’m a maggot-ridden prick who knows the definitions of the fucking words he uses. Jesus Christ. You speaking is like a child just scribbling away on construction paper. Fuck off my site, Samantha.
“I don’t believe in raciscm!”
What in the name of fuck are you talking about?
At least you admit you are a maggot-ridden prick, now admit that you are worthless! And you “speaking” is like having to listen to someone with perpetual flatulance, and smells twice as bad! I will now glady fuck off your pathetic site!
-Dick
Then I’m a maggot-ridden prick who knows the definitions of the fucking words he uses. Jesus Christ. You speaking is like a child just scribbling away on construction paper. Fuck off my site, Samantha.
“I don’t believe in raciscm!”
What in the name of fuck are you talking about?
-Dick
You can’t not believe in racsism, you stupid cunt. Just like you can’t not believe in the Ford Pinto. It fucking exists.
-Dick
Let me rephrase my statement then so as to better explain it to a dimwit like you: I am not a racist.
You worthless, maggot-ridden prick!
Or, as Samantha would call it, the Ford Pinsto.
-Big Al
You can’t not believe in racsism, you stupid cunt. Just like you can’t not believe in the Ford Pinto. It fucking exists.
-Dick
Respectable people are allowed on this site?
-Big Al
Abaddon_fff, I don’t think you hate women, as a matter of fact, you are one of the most respectable people on this site. I meant that a few of the men on here act hateful toward women, I didn’t say that they actually hated women.
Only certain types of women see us as ‘women haters’. Its normally those women who expect men to behave like prince charming by prostrating before every ‘goddess’ that passes by no matter how self-centered or bitchy they may be.
Samantha,
I would like to see exactly where anything I said could even be construed as “hating women”. Whats saddening to me is that many women use this canard, in order to stop a meaningful debate. I don’t know how many times I will have to say this but me and many other posters on this site don’t hate women.
-Strength and Honor-
No prob. Stormfront is a well known neo-nazi site. Check out the main url http://www.stormfront.org (not giving them an actual link since I don’t want them tracking back to this site). I don’t know about the people they host, but I’m not going to hold my breath wading through the sewer.
Regards,
-wolfe
I apologzie, I wasn’t aware that “Caveman Al” was a racist. I thought that he was only a male chauvinist. I’ve read through his site and I’ve never seen anything racist on it. I most certainly do not believe in racsism.
Samantha, you link to Stormfront.org, a “White Pride” website. Please don’t link racist crap like that. I don’t care if they agree with a few things I say (or disagree); the views of racists are anathema to me.
Secondly, no, most men on this site do not act “hateful[sic]” towards women. Yes, we do tend to give new posters short shrift; that’s probably not entirely fair, but it’s not hateful.
-wolfe
sonyad, what the hell are you babbling about? Who’s “hating for the most meaningless of reasons”? All I’m pointing out is that most of you men on this site act hateful toward women, and it’s the truth!
Such frivolous creatures most women are. Why would you hate samsung batteries? Because DuraCell batteries last longer? Perhaps it is the way your gender naturally operates, assigning blame and proceeding to hate for the most meaningless of reasons. But don’t assume men are the same dough only by virtue of guilt by association under humanity blanket.
Most of you men on this website (including the webmaster) are so hateful toward women. Too bad you can’t be more like this male chauvinist:
http://cat4.stormfront.org/~ilove/c_corner/
Fem why do you crack on Americans so much?
Are you jealous of them too?
Silly girl or is it silly sow.
I got relatives down under, in England and the USA.
Which is rather disturbing to think I may be related to Fem.
Now back to the manpost, it is right as usual.
Women get dirt under their nails? No way.
Remember for true equality you would have to force them into cushy high paying jobs so they can gossip all day and insult men.
Here a thought…
women don’t think things are suppose to break down or wear out and if it does well “Those darn men just can’t do nothing right.” They should have had a women build it.
[turn sarcasm filter off]