essentialsaltes | Sorry, hagdirt

Oh God I can't stop laughing.

Adam J. Bernay brings you joy! Yay!

Hmmm... you're also tall, dark and lovely...

You're too kind, but sadly, I fear that I am not the curvaceous Amazonian she-Jew he seeks. OH DARN!

Where can I find an acceptable environment for my loud, but factually baseless opinions...hmm... ooh! religion!
In just a few years we'll all be tipping our hats to Reverend Godot.

A 6' tall Ashkenazi lass? Boy doesn't want much, does he?

--- Ajax.

Yes, and when you add Messianic and 'not too bony', the Venn diagram looks like a spirograph with not too much room in the center.

Haha, in the hopes of adding more imagery I tried a Google Image Search:

Your search - ashkenazi tall - did not match any documents.

Oh, and one other thing... I have found a wonderful young lady whom I have high hopes for. She matches my description almost exactly. So take your amusement and shove it.

I wouldn't settle for "almost" exactly. Demand perfection! Yahweh OWES it to you. You're His number one fan! You've read everything He's ever written!

If you found that news story, you also found that we no longer meet in my parents' home, but in our own location at 1573 W. Shaw Ave. in Fresno.

And I found this blog entry because I have a Google News & Web Alert for the word "Messianic." Ironic, is it

Some of your respondents apparently feel the need to make snide remarks about people behind their backs. That's sad. Maybe they need to grow up. Or find God. Or all of the above.

I knew the internet was a two-way street, but that was awfully fast. Kudos.

It's not just my respondents. I'll cop to being snide too, but it's only because I don't like you.

Yeah, that was mature...

But honest. Gotta give him that.

Even in honesty, it is wrong.

Not liking you is wrong?

Making rude comments about people is just wrong.

Ask yourself: What did I ever do to you to merit your ire? I DISAGREED WITH YOU! And I stood my ground! Oh, no! I must be stupid! Or maybe I'm just a fellow human being who deserves your respect.

Er, I think you may have me confused with someone else. To the best of my knowledge, I've never disagreed with you. I don't think I ever even knew of you until I first read this post.

I was intrigued by your notion that someone who dislikes you is wrong, though.

Standing your ground is not a meritorious trait when you do so (and you certainly have!) in the face of contrary evidence. Particularly when you have no facts to offer that support your side of the argument. I don't like you because you were intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you have changed your spots, but I'm really not very interested.

"An honest whore is less of an insult to humanity than a sanctimonious
prig who ignores the truth and fosters error and illusion."

--HP Lovecraft, letter to Maurice Moe 1/4/30

Funny, I don't recall it that way. Neither do others from Enigmachat I remain in touch with. So, well, what that means is you think that your opinions are the only ones that have facts and evidence to back them up. Who is being intellectually dishonest?

Funny, I don't recall it that way.

That's because you're intellectually dishonest or self-deluded (take your pick).

what that means is you think that your opinions are the only ones that have facts and evidence to back them up.

No, what I mean is that you frequently failed to provide facts and evidence to support your position.

Let's visit the enigmachat archives:

Adam: Even back as far as the founding of this country, we had not
only a much higher literacy rate, but we also had a much higher civic
knowledge rate!
(Source: Adam's ass)

Mike:
In 1920, the Census reported a US illiteracy rate of 6.0%
In 1930, the Census reported a US illiteracy rate of 4.3%.
The Census defines an illiterate as "one who cannot write in any language".
The 1970 Census figure is 1%
(Source: US Census data)

Scott:
Percent Illiterate in the Population (p.382)
1870 20
1900 10.7
1930 4.3
1969 1.0

High School Graduates -- percent of persons 17 years old (p.381)
1870 2.0
1900 6.3
1930 28.8
1969 75.9
(Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970_.)

Adam: I wonder what was meant by "illiterate" by these standards, since the info I've seen is different.
(Source: Info Adam has seen.)

Actually, no, that was not the sources. deTocqueville wrote about the high rate of literacy in "Democracy in America" and there was other similar data I had gleaned from when I was doing research work for the president of the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. I'd have to go back over the records of that research to find where I gleaned that from. If you really want me to, I can check on it. But the fact is, it's not stuff sourced from my tuchus. And this is the point: I know for a fact that I mentioned both "Democracy in America" and the Alliance research at the time, and yet you still credit this only as coming from my nether regions. That means YOU are the intellectually dishonest one, not wanting to admit that other data exists.

Since Democracy in America was written 170 years ago, I don't think anything De Tocqueville had to say can bear on the question of the current state of public education and literacy.

Regardless, it remains a fact that you did not then, nor have you now, offered any data.

De Tocqeville had something to say on the state of American literacy at the time he toured America. We can then compare it to now. Sheesh.

I have offered the source of it. I can dig for the specifics, if you are willing to hear it. I don't dig out old info for it to fall on deaf ears.

Neither do others from Enigmachat I remain in touch with.

You mean Dan, who is your friend. He's a good friend.

However, the majority of the list thinks different: myself, Mike, Scott, Ray, Rebecca, Ian, and all the other people who voted to take you off the list because you were being an obstacle to honest debate, and annoying to boot.

The ironic thing is that I've met you in person, and you're not nearly as obnoxious as you are on email and blogs. Perhaps you should bring the standards of decency you use in face-to-face conversation along with you when you post? Might not have to worry about what people say about you then.

Neither do others from Enigmachat I remain in touch with.

You mean Dan, who is your friend. He's a good friend.

And others.

Perhaps you should bring the standards of decency you use in face-to-face conversation along with you when you post?

Funny, I think I do.

And others.

Like whom? Why don't you present your evidence right now, on this question?

Or are you a lying coward?

Funny, I think I do.

Funny, many other people (names mentioned above, and the people listed here, and count myself in that number), don't think you are decenct in your online discussions.

So, what do you think this means?

1. We are all lying to you. We really do think you're a swell guy, but the dybbukstwitch their tentacles around our brains, and we spew forth venomous bile.

2. We are all wrong in our opinions. We don't really know what we think or feel about you.

(This one is pretty radical, so hang on to yourself)
3. YOU are wrong about the way you handle yourself. Your own self-image is distorted, perhaps by gravity, into thinking that the arguments you engage in are really kind and respectful of other human beings, when in fact they are malicious and fallacious.

You can say that you don't give a fuck about what other people say/think about you (my MO), but you can't say that you have decent respectful conversations when so many people think you don't.

Weren't you kicked off the Enigma chat list? To my knowledge, that has only happened to TWO people in it's decade-plus long history (although there might be a third soon).
And HUNDREDS of people there have had many vehement discussions about everything. Yet it is a rare thing to get booted off, an action reserved only for the most heinous, pig-headed, villainous of souls.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Benjamin Franklin

I must have missed the commandment about making snide remarks behind people's backs. But I appreciate the pity and the sanctimoniousness -- it makes the whole exchange that much more amusing.

--- Ajax.

The concept is called "lashon hara," or "the evil tongue," and there is also slander or "motzi shem ra." Here are some commandments dealing with it that apply to this situation:

"You shall not hate your brother in your heart" (Vayikra 19:12)

"You shall not wrong one another" (Vayikra 25:17)

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Vayikra 19:18)

[NOTE: "Vayikra" is the Hebrew name for the book commonly known as Leviticus.]

From the teaching on Lashon Hara at the website of the Coalition of Torah Observant Messianic Congregations:

"Here are nine rules to remember:

"1. It is lashon hara to convey a derogatory image of someone even if that image is true and deserved; it is slanderous (motzi shem ra) to do so when the image is false.

"2. It is lashon hara to convey information about people that can cause them physical, psychological or financial harm.

"3. It is lashon hara to embarrass people, even in jest, or to tell embarrassing things about them when they are not present.

"4. Lashon hara is not limited to verbal communication; the written word, body language, innuendo, and the like can also be hurtful.

"5. It is lashon hara to speak against a community, race, ethnic group, gender, or age group as a whole.

"6. Do not relate lashon hara even to your spouse, close friends or relatives.

"7. Do not repeat lashon hara even when it is common knowledge.

"8. Avoid r'chilut (Gossip): Do not relate to people negative things others may say about them, for this may cause needless conflict.

"9. Do not listen to lashon hara or r'chilut. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt."

Mike, can you please delete all comments from this person, starting with these and continuing as long as this blog is up?

I don't like losing my appetite when his picture or words come up.

And no one wants me to start comments like "Ok, now that I have wiped the vomit off the walls..."

(my first comment got worse from there)

Sorry, Mr. Anonymous. Adam has the right to free speech (though obviously no particular right to be published in my blog), while you have no right not to be offended into vomitaciousness.

Alright....gloves off, then.

Reposted from It's blog:
Adam's Predictions for Election 2006
I've decided to start posting my election predictions on my blog and discusing the reasons behind them.

One reason I believe the GOP will retain the House of Reps is because most predictions do not take into account the fact that these congressional districts are gerrymandered all to heck, and you have to have a HUGE momentum to overcome that, which I don't believe the Dems have, not that huge.

Also, I don't think people really tell the truth to pollsters... whether it's because they knowingly don't tell it or they really don't know what they're going to do until they walk into the booth, I'm not sure. Anyway, onto the predictions:

House:
GOP retains control, by less than five seats, probably 1 or 2 seats.

Senate:
GOP retains control, again by less than five seats, probably 1 or 2 seats.
****

Well, we can see that Fat was wrong. Fatty fat fat wrong. The Dems (of which I guess It doesn't consider itself one?) *DID* have a HUGE momentum to wash out most of the corrupt, greedy, hypocritical, hateful, ignorant, intolerant, malicious Nazi-wannabes, a.k.a the GOP.

Will Mr. Disgustingly Obese admit that he was wrong, or will some kind of convoluted excuse snake out of his ass (like santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/)) for why things didn't go the way he predicted?

Rather than the results being a 1 or 2 GOP majority in the senate, it's a LOSS OF SIX.

Rather than results being a 1 or 2 seat GOP majority in the House, it's a LOSS OF ALMOST THIRTY!

Oh, and Dems gained ground with SIX additional Governor seats.

Ha ha.
(results (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/))

I wonder what else Hirsute Jabba is/was blatantly wrong about?

Please quote some more Bible bullshit; your imaginary god still loves you.

I think the last was out of bounds. Being fat and wrong has nothing to do with being an ass. Adam was certainly wrong, but that's no reason to attack him; he was just posting his best guess on his own journal. There's plenty to attack him on without going after his weight. I never knew the guy personally (though I did go back and read some of his vitriolic posts for humor value), but I think you give yourself the most respectability if you drop the ad hominem.

Agreed.

Will Mr. Disgustingly Obese admit that he was wrong, or will some kind of convoluted excuse snake out of his ass (like santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/)) for why things didn't go the way he predicted?

Ummm... I did admit I was wrong. http://maccabee.livejournal.com/58435.html

Or were you too desparate to show me as being evil to check? Ignoring The Data That Might Show You Wrong equals Intellectual Dishonesty.

Now who's intellectually dishonest?

Uhmmm...I could only stand to read one page of your blog because you are so disgusting. I can only hold my breath for so long before your shit tries to wiggle into my eyeballs.

So no, I didn't read the entry where you admit you were wrong. Congratulations on being such a swell guy, you admitted that you were WRONG, VERY, VERY WRONG about the recent election. What do you want, a brownie?

Now that concrete evidence has proven you WRONG, VERY, VERY WRONG, maybe you can admit that there are OTHER THINGS you are WRONG, VERY, VERY WRONG about.

Like that people 'round these parts like you.

And I didn't state that you wouldn't admit that you're wrong, I just asked the question about you. I never answered it (sure, I made it obvious where I placed my bets, but I didn't stick around to find out where the ball landed).

Oh, and can you PLEASE use another userpic? I'm trying to keep a meal down.

I'm sorry about calling you disgustingly obese and fatty fat fat and Hirsute Jabba. That was totally uncalled for and puerile. The dybbuk shoved my mind onto the desk and speared its screaming scalding cock into my ear until I had no choice but to tap lashon hara on the keyboard with my feebled fingers.

But everything else that I said was my fault.

Damnit.

Speaking of stalking, have you googled Our Pal? Interesting.

Our pal Cal, you mean? It wasn't as interesting as I'd hoped, but yeah.

"Our pal".... Cal? Do you mean Carl or is there something else entirely I'm missing and couldn't be expected to know about?

Sorry, something you couldn't be expected to know about. Although I now have a fair group of plastipeople on my friendslist, the majority is still IRL peoples. Some system shock is likely to occur until everything gets assimilated.

Is there more than what was just shared on the list? Beyond his website, haven't found much interesting...

Well, that he's a 42-year-old filmmaker who doesn't have any association to UCLA that I can discern. Not terribly odd; Enigma's like that.

Then, the number of hits that come up which are 1. letters to the editor containing ranting, and 2. letters to the editor responding to his ranting. Not terribly surprising, considering his recent freakout.

The combination of the two, however, I find interesting. Why does he want to be our friend, yet come and freak out at us? If we annoy him so much, why doesn't he leave, and find better friends elsewhere?

All right, only mildly interesting.

(deleted comment)

I'm sorry you find such attention so compelling.

And "Anonymous" is not Ian.

It all makes me nostalgic for 7th grade.

You're nostalgic for last year?

No, "anonymous" is not Ian. (Well, this "anonymous" is, but none of the other posts on this thread are by me.) I wouldn't even know about this now if hagdirt hadn't told me.

In point of fact, I agree that the previous "anonymous" was way out of line. Even Adam, who dislikes me, would presumably admit that I never made fun of his weight, appearance, or religion - only his arguments and his adherence to them in the face of contrary evidence.

Your assumption that the above comments were my handiwork says more about you (specifically, your inability to distinguish a legitimate criticism of an argument from a malicious and unwarranted personal attack) than it does about me.

-Ian

Sorry, hagdirt

no subject

no subject

no subject

opiate of the massive

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

please

Re: please

Re: please

Re: please

Re: please

Re: please

Re: please

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Wow.

Re: Wow.

Re: Wow.