Month: March 2014

Terribly Sad/Sadly Terrible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30/robert-richards-rape_n_5060386.html?icid=maing-grid7|maing10|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D459475

Psssssst…. 2:03-2:24

“Aaron’s pro tips: 2. Assume that ignorance is a valid excuse for being a white racist.”

(WAIT A MINUTE! You said “white racist”. Why did you say that?
Since, according to everything you’ve said before, ONLY whites can
be racist. Therefore, to say “white racist” is, by your own
definition, redundant. Unless of course you mean there can be
other types of racists…but that goes against everything you’ve said previously. You SEEM too eloquent to be TOTALLY redundant…Hmmmm…)”
– Excerpt from a previous discussion

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good clip from a very good movie featuring a usually not-very-good actor. (housekeeping)

Ok, so let’s assume that everything you say is right, and everything any religion says is wrong.

IMPO it isn’t/it isn’t/you’re mostly a bunch of conceited wankers, BUT let’s assume those things for this.

How strategically sound is it to pick a fight with an opponent that has MANY times what you have in terms of: money, power, influence, manpower, consolidation…?

It’s like, for example, an independent political candidate that was NOT independently wealthy.

That candidate could have the greatest ideas and be able to magically fix the world (well, not really, but EVEN IF they could)…and they’d still lose.

How do I know this?  HISTORY.  FACT.  You know…the truth.

You might not LIKE it, but it is the truth. 

You’re fcked.  You cannot win.  Your zeal is matched by MANY independents that have gone down to defeat, year after year after year, since the beginnings of this country.

But hey, good luck. HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Ahem.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“Adam Terman  Aaron, thanks for being one of the 40 trolls a day.”

Personally, I think you should try to get either DOWN to 6.9 a day or UP to 69 a day.

“The fact that you took the time says a lot.”

Not really.  My life’s not particularly exciting, and you guys make great satire fodder.  Not to mention what you do for my hit total.

“But if you got up from your laptop”

Why would I be sitting on my laptop?

“feeling a little more superior”

How can you feel “more” superior?  Superior does not equal large.  So “more” superior is just a dumb statement…but it’s ok, I still love you.  And so does God.

“I guess that’s the goal.”

No, my goal was to provide satirical amusement to my readers, get a few laughs or at least chuckles for myself, and possibly convert someone to NON-crusading Atheism.  Two out of three ain’t bad.

“And googling past posts? Nice, you are a sophisticated troll.”

Using google is a sign of sophistication?  Oh, right, yeah…that’s a dismissive insult masquerading as a compliment.  Well done.
———————————————
Part Two:

“Bella Wilfer-Rokesmith I’m pretty sure he can tell us himself if he wants us to know something. What are you, some kind of groupie wannabe?”

Bella, at the end of this y’all gonna be wearing gold-plated diapers. (?)
QUOTE: “I don’t have the time, the interest, the energy…” – Neil deGrasse Tyson on CA/Aing

“Bella Wilfer-Rokesmith Maybe he will send you an autographed picture after you send him your fictional stories about him.”

Bella, you are a Godsend…

What the fck are you talking about? Ummm…sorry, but:

You’re a loony. You’re also reported for trolling and spam.

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam *Wonderful spam, wonderful spam!* spam, spam…

Great lead-in JW, I’ll take it from here.

*Me talking to everyone reading as if JW isn’t here*

“So the people in this group put up with my rampant posting without a single word of complaint to me for over a week.  The group leader actually “LIKE”s at least 3 of them.  Then, suddenly, instead of ASKING for more posts, because they thought they were “winning”, they basically raise the white flag and hide behind “you’re reported!”.  Intellectual Cowards, eh?”

You guys say trolling a lot…can you go back to the logical fallacy obsession?  I think that one was slightly more sophisticated and thus worthy of you.

BUT, as to your FIRST point, I must respond thusly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Nq3xuHkgE

AND

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmyHup4TpkU    1:19-2:02

-Puppy >.< Yip!

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Both clips are good parts from a great show. (housekeeping)

Well, it’s simple really.  Just like any other group, their first response to dissidents is to attempt to overpower them/their arguments with sh1t that comes naturally to them.  You know, the basics…the sh1t they’ve said so many times they’ve got it memorized, down cold. 
Like:  “Ok, this person is *insert suspected flaw in belief structure here*.  So let’s go after that…Ok, that’s a number 23A.  Roll it out”.

If that fails, more will join with different but very similar sh1t.  It’s a pack effect…they’re not doing it to educate, they’re doing it because their rep isn’t doing so well (rep: first person spoken to regarding a given subject).  Then the rep shuts the fck up cuz they realize they weren’t good enough, and the real heavy-hitters come in. (I know, I know…sometimes it’s “the closest they have to-“, but still).

Different methods are employed: The “talking to someone else who feels exactly the same as if dissident isn’t even there”.  The purpose of this is to insult said dissident for being “left out” or “ignored” so they will get angsty and say something stupid.  Also, talking to a fellow tends to give you a bit of renewed confidence: “No, I am NOT wrong…”, etc…

If THIS doesn’t work, maybe their ultra-super-high-mucky-muck comes in and slams the door shut with their best outro.  Or maybe they just completely ignore you…but they still know you’re there, so don’t give up hope.  They’re reading every word you type.

Then there’s the optional “send in a rational neutralish guy”…this is where someone talks to dissident with at least SOME degree of respect, in an attempt to shut them up.  May turn swiftly into step one if they sense imminent failure.

THEN…and ONLY then, do they call upon outside powers.  Why?  Because that makes them feel weak…to NEED someone else to defend you from words.  It’s absolutely INFURIATING to a self-styled educated person to feel like they’re LOSING to some random loser on the net. :)

This post is not here.

This post has never been here.

At least in some cases, repetition is not the key to comedy.  It’s quoting angsty CA/A’s as they bleat about “logical fallacies” and attempt intellectual, “superior” insults.  Because everyone knows if your insult sounds smart, it must be.  And also funny.

Soooo…given recent readings, it would appear my initial statement was imprecise.  Let’s say repetition and/or angsty CA/A’s is the key to comedy.  Preferably both…and they do oblige.

Vis:

Martine Atherton
“not really any insight there, just a bit butthurt.”

Puppy Response: Well, the insight to me is “Even people that are 6.9 sure about something will read a post if it’s the only way to honestly say ‘Sorry, honey, I don’t want to create anymore revolting offspring.'”  Also, when you say “butthurt” do you mean anal sex, painful rectal itch, a good spanking?  Can’t figure out if you have an anal fixation, an anal fixation, or…hmmm.

Oh!

“Joseph Waldman That’s nice. Now run along, Bergoglioite troll.”

Puppy Response: Wow…you really like that word. Google overload.  You need to, IMPO, expand your horizons on the insult front.  I mean, change it up a little, man.

“Don Taylor Jr. So you decided to expend time and energy to use the argument from authority to declare that it’s a waste of time and energy… o_0”

Puppy Response: So you decided to expend time and energy pointing out that I was wasting time and energy using (OMG/OMLG no, I will not repeat your bleated logical fallacy) to declare that something is a waste of time and energy?

4/15/16: “This is gettin monotonous!” – Curly Howard

And finally, just for fun:

“…presents Richard Dawkins at in Des Moines, Iowa…”

Puppy Response: This could have used at in an editor.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Latham Conger III:  “What’s your point, mouthbreather with an ego?”

Oh, paaaahhhhdon me.  I shall henceforth refer to him as “Latham, of the Shrill People”.

But…how can I analyze this?  He says nothing…it’s purely an insult.  I think he’s just really angsty-pissed, and he’s trying to find out how best to get under my craw.  Well, sorry LotSP, but third-rate demand/insults aren’t quite good enough.

Why do I quote/comment on these weirdos so much?  Doesn’t that make me as redundant as they are?  Well, not really…because since this is satire, I’m not so much responding as I am mocking.  And there are endless variations on a mock.  AND it’s d@mn good for hits!!!

But…let’s try: “What’s your point,” – Now, this makes sense by itself, if he didn’t understand what I was trying to say. 

“mouthbreather with an ego?”

Now this is interesting…he called me a “mouthbreather”, which I admit I had to look up because that’s a fairly rare insult…at least, *I* have never gotten called that before.  So I looked it up, and now I’m less ignorant!  Should I thank him?

And “with an ego?”.  Ummm…everyone has an ego.  You needed to add something to that, LotSP…like “inflated”, or “extreme”, or “Dawkins-esque”.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“Agnostic Atheist Anti-Theist Foundation Sometimes Bill Maher hits the nail on the head. – JC”

Let’s break this down logically.

JC, apparently the (or one of the) head of AAATF, watches a long Bill Maher rant about religion being horrible, I point out how unbelievably redundant Maher is, and that’s the best support JC can respond with?

I mean, that’s approaching Das But territory: “If you go somewhere else, someone besides me…”

Really ummm…emotionally involved.  And intellectually committed.

Because the statement “Sometimes Bill Maher hits the nail on the head” could mean anything.

Sometimes = more than 1 time
Bill Maher = some garden variety CA/A.  Please…stop planting them.
hits the nail on the head = figuratively, of course.  Meaning “gets something right”

So, the real statement being made (since they don’t believe in empathy, reading emotions, tone, context) is “At least 2 times in his life, a CA/A gets something completely right.”

PUPPY NOTE: “Correct” not used for possible further post advancement reasons.

I mean, I know he CAN’T (well…this is NOT strictly logical, so I dunno, but…) mean that, literally.  He can’t mean “Bill Maher has gotten something totally right at least twice in his life”.

Because that would be stupid, not to mention imprecise.  I mean, I’m sure Bill got a few questions right on his 4th grade math exam.

So what he’s REALLY saying is (in my subjective Puppy opinion) either: “I don’t believe anything he says here is right, but I want to support him anyway, so I’ll say something completely ambiguous”.

OR: “I believe some things he says here are right, but not others, and I don’t want to insult a fellow CA/A, so I’ll vaguely support him in a completely non-binding manner.”

OR: “I believe this entire video is absolutely correct and gets everything totally right.”

OR: “I believe Bill Maher gets things totally right sometimes, but I either haven’t watched the video or I’m too lazy to point out a thing in particular, so I’ll just use an ambiguous figure of speech.”

Brilliant!

-Puppy >.< Yip!