Category: I Am Puppy Hear Me Degrade

To Oberhausbergen:

God Bless You!

For those wondering what this experience of being under DDOS attack is like, I think it’s fairly similar to this:

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – It’s so annoying it’s BRILLIANT!

See also:

“Travel Agent Sketch”

Last Updated: 7/31/16

Ok, so, I’d just like to say hello to all the completely logical, unemotional CA/A’s who couldn’t care less about my views…and, I want to say something else…and I don’t want you to take this the wrong way…but you’re not very GOOD DDOS attackers, are you?

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Really good clip. I’ve always wondered why T. Jones has an egg on his head in the sketch “program” intro.

Ok, so, reviewing this DDOS attack…ummmmm…it was kind of weird and scary at first…but, well…

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Great Palin/Jones bit (with Gilliam acting NOT HORRIBLY!!!) that lingers throughout the episode.

Total Individual Visitors Today: 578
Current Visitors Online: 11

Total Hits Today: 4,128

“…and another one…and another one…and another one…”

7/31/16 3:04 PM EST: Please see ‘As DDOS Turns – Part Seven’ for pupdates.

Last Updated: 7/31/16 at 3:03 PM EST

Ok, so apparently there’s a LOT of puppies out there. I mean…a LOT.

A LOT!!!

– Puppy >.< Yip!

If you’re gonna try to talk to me – and I don’t know you – allow me to display how *I* feel about BS and propaganda.

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Very good scene from a great movie. Displays what I consider an admirable attitude toward BS.

Message: If you have something to say, say it. If you BS/prop, it’s not gonna have ANY better chance of a positive outcome for you; at best, it will have no influence whatsoever so you’re just being a colossal moron by wasting your time (and mine).

“Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull?”

“Good, honest…hatred. Very refreshing.”

Is it just me, or does “zombie hand” from Subeta look like Palin’s first hand in the “Man Who Contradicts People” sketch?

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again…the Devil can play a good tune.

If the BEST that climate change deniers can do is to point out in
“See??? Nyah nyah nyah!” fashion that 97 percent is not the PRECISE number for scientists that (insert level of belief in climate change, man’s role in climate change, available proof of man’s role in climate change, etc…) believe…please – you’re giving me deja vu to the days when cigarettes weren’t “absolutely proven” to be bad for you.

We – along with scientists and cigarette companies – knew cigarettes were bad for you LONG BEFORE it was “proven”. Come on…gimme a break.

The only thing the “proof” delay proved is that scientists are humans, and like getting huge piles of cash from X to say/not say something.

AND:

One of my favorite bits of antitheist nonsense is the antitheist’s version of the religious refrain that “the only people who are truly saved are X” where X = a specific religion, as supplied by resident antitheist truth-teller (well, sort of) Penn Jillette:

“The only people with true morality are us, the atheists.”

What you mean “us”, illusionist?

As for 97 percent not being the precise number for “scientists who believe climate change is happening and is significantly influenced by man”, perhaps…

But that’s only because some scientists:
– Haven’t stated such a belief and/or
– Are the same “See, it’s fine!” minority (and no matter WHAT stats you look at, they ARE in FACT a minority) that cigarette companies were able to pay enough to get away with poisoning peoples’ lungs DECADES after they KNEW they were doing so.

ALSO:

Why do these new Durex dancing tights go baggy at the…errr…nevermind.

BUT:

Here’s a good question: So, anything mentioning or referencing Nazi Germany in any way is automatically a logical fallacy…ummm…righhhtttt…

Here’s the thing: The reason mentioning Nazi Germany during an argument or debate, EVEN IF the reference is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND PRECISE, is a logical fallacy (supposedly) is:

It sheds an unfair or inappropriate light on X or Y, where X and Y are two sides to a debate or argument.

So, basically, this is saying “You cannot use propaganda to influence the outcome of a debate/discussion/etc.”

Which is a nice, cute little thought.

But think about it. Give it THE SLIGHTEST amount of thought.

A reference to Nazi Germany/Hitler/etc is an INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS prop move – even if it’s not meant that way.

So…you CANNOT use incredibly obvious propaganda, or it’s a logical fallacy (even if your point is, in fact, true)…BUT…

If you’re smart/manipulative enough to use NON-obvious propaganda to influence thought/outcome/etc…that’s fine?

Propaganda is propaganda. The “best” (that is to say, most effective) propaganda is NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS PROPAGANDA. It comes across as “fair” when it is, in fact, simply well-disguised propaganda.

So, it’s ok to use propaganda when it’s done subtly? If you can get away with a prop argument, it’s fine?

Bullsh1t. Write down all the “logical fallacy” descriptions, roll them up, throw them away, and just TALK…person to person, real to real.

Instead of making up all these rules, just stick with one, as paraphrased from Jim Carrey in ‘Liar Liar’:

(Exchange “breaking the law” with “trying to bullsh1t people”):

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A good example of loud honesty.

Thank you.

First, let me apologize in advance for these ad nauseum DPT’s.

I’ve finally figured it out.

When quasi-intellectuals insert obligatory Latin and/or obligatory semi-“scientific” terminology into their otherwise normal English speech (verbal or written), it’s done for three reasons.

1 – It allows them to retain an aura of superiority, whether anything they say has any validity or not. The second has no intrinsic connection to the first, of course.

2 – They’ve studied certain programmed, computerized responses to certain specific things to such a point where they have in fact BECOME “computerized” to an extent; in much the same way that Diane Chambers (and I love Diane Chambers, but it is what it is) inserts random French words and phrases into her speech for no adequately explored reason other than she feels superior and is “demonstrating” her superiority by showing her advanced intellect; in fact, while certain very common words and phrases are actually part of normal English vernacular for most people, *most* of her “improvements” are both amusing and actively counter-productive…often noone else has the slightest idea what she’s talking about, and so in terms of communication, she is behaving in a most illogical fashion. If her point is to display superiority for no other reason than to say “ha ha I’m smarter than you are”, she succeeds. Else she fails, since to intentionally use phrasing that you know will INHIBIT communication is DAMAGING to the act of communication, serving no useful purpose other than the ego-padding of the speaker.

5) Dick Dawk is a c@ck. I would say the same about Chris Hitchens, but at this point he’s probably more accurately described as a pile of decaying organic matter in some state of decomposition that cannot be PRECISELY defined, but which probably has lost the complete set of twigs and berries.

He somehow found a way to coach the winningest team in NBA history to a Finals LOSS.

*I* could coach a team with Curry/Green/Thompson on it and have a winning season. Just ask Steph who he thought the rotation should be, nod, and then sit on the bench and watch.

I mean, if it’s gonna be “Coach Of The Team With The Winningest Record”, fine, but it should be properly named.

Kerr’s job is about as hard as K.C. Jones’ was. I mean, come on…it’s a fcken joke.

It’d be nice if more sportswriters actually had the guts to vote for who they REALLY thought COACHED the best…but that would require a lot more effort and analysis.

I mean, really, what did Kerr do? He put the best players in and made the occasional substitution.

I can’t remember the number of times an analyst (some pro-Celtics, some neutral) SPECIFICALLY commented on a great COACHING move that Brad Stevens was making/had made/etc…

Seriously, to all the voters, unless you’re getting paid to go with the flow, what’s the rationale here?

The equivalent logic would be:

The Baltimore Ravens won the Super Bowl in 2000. Therefore, Trent Dilfer was the best quarterback in 2000.

I mean, the Ravens DIDN’T RE-SIGN HIM AFTER HE WON THE SUPER BOWL. But, oh yeah, he was great.

“Game Manager” = Not very good, realizes and accepts that, and doesn’t try to do too much.

I guess if his team hadn’t LOST in the Finals, Steve Kerr would be a really really good “Series Manager”.

Come to think of it, I’m a pretty good “Cliche Manager”.

I think, for the purposes of truth-telling and in the spirit of defining “reality”, every video featuring the rotting pile of inanimate matter formerly known as “Christopher Hitchens” (hey, just keepin’ it real) should henceforth be retitled as part of a lengthy sequence…sort of like this one!

Christopher Hitchens Acts Like An A$$hole (Part X)

Huh? Someone should work on that.

Because being wrong or right, as the case may or may not be, has no intrinsic connection with being or not being an a$$hole.

Do you know one of the things that’s great about having your own website? You can post *JOKE*s like this one, knowing that some CA/A’s will see it, knowing that deep down inside they’ll be at least a LITTLE pissed (whether they admit it or not), and knowing there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it.

I mean, in order to do something about it they’d have to expend energy; be it responding somewhere else, trying to illegally hack into my website (naughty naughty!), or, *somehow* taking and using moments of their life reacting to something they supposedly care nothing about (me/my opinions/my website/etc).

That’s the part I really love. Just sort of gets me right here…

Curly Howard, unknown to many, makes a stunningly perceptive argument/statement/question in the Three Stooges short ‘An Ache In Every Stake’.

Now, Curly cleverly disguises this as a discussion about warmth in various conditions, but the analogy to the argument over the existence/non-existence of God is quite apparent when you consider all the hidden nuances littered throughout the short.

Here is the actual verbatim statement:

“Tell me…is it as warm in the summer as it is in the country? Or vice versa? Or who cares? *nyuk nyuk nyuk*”

When you put this incredibly challenging statement together with all the other elements, the clarity is DEVASTATING.

But where is the ambiguity? It’s over there, in a box.

Careful study reveals that the “nyuk” repeated at the end of the statement, while APPARENTLY a form of laughter at a simple joke, could very well be much more. Oh, SO much more…

I can’t even begin to appreciate fully the majesty and yet brilliantly simple meanings at play here…

But like the question “If God exists, and is omnipotent, can God create a boulder so heavy that even He cannot lift it?”

I’ve read ‘Hagakure’, and as with it, some statements take long, long periods of intense thought to even BEGIN to comprehend.

Such is the case here. We may never know, in our lifetimes, the true meaning of Curly’s words. But it is a fitting challenge for the greatest minds of today.

We must, I would suppose, be satisfied in being able to at least comprehend another brilliantly allegorical piece:

Ecce Homo, Ergo Elk. La Fontaine knew his sister and knew her bloody well.

Fair Use: Criticism – GREAT clip.

To the people that tried to hack into my site today:

Now…I’m gonna say something, and I don’t want you to take this the wrong way…but you’re not very GOOD hackers, are you?

I mean most of you can’t hack at all and the rest merely do a forward aerial half-hack every alternate attempt.

So I read that Danny Ainge made a “lowball” offer for Jimmy Butler, consisting of two first round draft picks and Jae Crowder.

Obviously, this article was written by a non Celtics fan.

Because – if it was written by anyone who WASN’T at least slightly jealous of the C’s 17 titles as opposed to their (fill in the blank with a smaller number) – this is basically saying that Ainge did his job (try to make the Celtics better) and implying there’s somehow something wrong with that.

I mean, Red Auerbach is praised/recognized for his ability to rip off inferior basketball minds. So should Ainge be.

Is Danny supposed to tell every team he deals with “OK…now, you probably shouldn’t accept this offer, BUT…”?

When did being the GM of a professional basketball team come with training wheels?

Should Ainge have told the Brooklyn Nets “OK…now, I know you want to win now, but this is probably way too much to give up for these aging players…”?

Maybe not snatched Jae Crowder and Isaiah Thomas from their respective teams before said teams realized how good they were?

Maybe Ainge should call them now and say “Yeah…I know you didn’t realize Thomas/Crowder would be this good…so, tell you what…why don’t I give you one of those Nets picks.”

Is Ainge trying to make the Celtics as good as possible while not giving a fck about any other team?

OF COURSE HE IS. THAT’S HIS JOB.

If he were your GM, you’d be TOTALLY cool with it.

Just because your GM isn’t that smart, don’t hate on Danny.

Unless, of course, you would – if given the chance – prefer your GM to make only those trade offers that were “good for both teams” and were not in any way “lowball” offers.

…Even if they knew the lowball offer would be accepted.

…And your team would lose three again veterans that had little chance of bringing another title to ANY team.

…And your team would gain…4, was it? 5? First round draft picks from a team your GM thought would stink.

Poor every-other-GM-not-Danny-Ainge! They need to be protected against Danny’s horrible lowball offers. Maybe there should be a system in place where the NBA itself takes a…

oops…nevermind.

Re: ‘Brotherhood/Sisterhood’

Sad to know that, for a lot of “intellectuals”, the fact that Kirk uses improper grammar is of more note than the fact that he and Spock are making a wonderful statement on true friendship.

Per ‘Against Method’, the ridiculous idea that the “Scientific Method” must ALWAYS be followed and can NEVER be deviated from is simply a crutch for weak, unimaginative minds.

It’s like asking a math savant what X times Y times Z is, and then insisting that they show their work, every step of the way, even though that is more time-consuming than just SAYING the answer, produces no (necessarily) better result, and can in fact stifle the “savant”-ness of that individual (as dogmatic method-insistence stifles creativity).

Is it just me, or is there a striking similarity between the opening to “Hotel California” and the song they play in the Cheese Shop sketch?

Somewhat common CA/A refrain: “If God exists, may they strike me down RIGHT NOW!”

Ooooo. Shock value. You’d make a great LaVeyan, just send away for your membership card.

Assuming you’re talking about the concept of God as described in the Bible (omniscient and omnipotent)…

You really think you can OUTSMART God??? “Command” God???

Like, you’re Loki/Bartleby and you’ve found a “loophole”?

Are you HIGH?

And ask yourself this:

Suppose…just suppose…that just ONCE, someone uttered the phrase “If God exists, may He strike me down right NOW!” and then was instantly struck by a bolt of lightning and killed.

Now, LOGIC states that the two have nothing to do with the other. The statement simply HAPPENED to coincide, in that instance, with the bolt of lightning.

But 100 bucks says AT LEAST half the people that use *the phrase* now would stop using it.

I mean…you gotta hedge your bets, right?

Here’s what I’m looking for, for my comic:

An artist who:
1) Can draw well
2) Can create accurate drawings from words
3) Has at least the *TINIEST* interest in my comic
4) Isn’t in it for the money.

I mean I know it’s cool and hipster to say you’re not in it for the money, but some people actually MEAN it. Don Hertzfeldt, for example. Just watch ‘Rejected’.

Not that artists shouldn’t get paid…of course they should.

But if you’re drawing FOR the money, not the craft, then you’re not an artist.

You’re a mercenary.

I haven’t been put in a position where I could prove this, true…but if by some MIRACLE my website got amazingly popular, and people started saying “Hey…I’ll give you X dollars if you give me a good review”, I’d tell them to go fck themselves.

If you don’t believe me, well let me paraphrase a favorite paraphrase:

“You know what? I don’t fcken give a sh1t.”

“You never want to lie to your audience…you can trick them, you can disturb them, you can annoy them, but you can never lie to them. To me commercials are nothing but lies.” – Don Hertzfeldt, ‘Rejected’ special text commentary

Unlike some people, I’m GLAD I have strong emotions.

I wouldn’t have it any other way.

If one of these doesn’t make you cry – or want to cry – I feel very sorry for you, and for the world that contains so many of you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjyL7_DROTs

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – These clips are all of emotional scenes that are worthy of being watched in the context of their original (complete) format. To review their quality, it is very good-to-great.

Hmmmm…well, let’s dispense with the BS about why people post here. Deep down inside, you all know THIS is why:

Come on…you know you want to…

(An Antitheist) I was going to think of something smart to say… but I think “awww, aren’t you the cutest little special snowflake” will have to suffice for now.

Come on, X. Who’s living in the real world, and who’s living in a fantasy kingdom now? What you mean to say is “Go fck yourself you stupid fcken fck!” So just SAY it, for God’s sake. (that was unintentional, I neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities).

“Well, that’s mere cocktail-party psychology Sam. Believe it or not, it is possible to have hostile feelings towards someone, WITHOUT being in love with them.” – Frasier Crane

(AA) You seem rather desperate for attention there, dude.

Be that as it may, I’m the one telling the truth, and you’re the one in denial. You know it’s true. I’d have a LITTLE respect for you if you’d just have the guts to admit it. You know…the truth? What you’re supposed to love?

(AA) “I’d have a little respect for you, if you only admitted that I am the ultimate holder of the truth and I know you better than you know yourself”.
Nah. You know what? I don’t think I need your respect.

You’re saying you have absolutely no interest in seeing a theist get ripped to shreds (metaphorically speaking) by Hitchens or Dawkins? I mean…really?

(AA) Not really. I occasionally like what Hitchens has to say, but it’s just as interesting if he isn’t “ripping a theist to shreds”.

Come on. We can’t have a real discussion if you’re going to cling to these fairy tales.

(AA) I’m kinda wondering why you need me to talk anyway, if you already know me better than I know myself. You could just fill in my part of the “discussion” for me, right?

No…the only thing I know is that you’re lying about your motivation. Apart from that, I don’t have the slightest idea who you are or what you think, or why, nor do I care.

Here’s a similar reaction (I love quotes): “Mr. Ambassador, you have nearly a hundred naval vessels operating in the North Atlantic right now. Your aircraft has dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet. Now, shall we dispense with the bull? ”

(AA) Sadly, I think the only thing you know, is also wrong. At least that means you have something in common with the one Game of Thrones character.

Que?

5/18/16: *Mills* “…you’re no different, you’re no better.” *Somerset* “I didn’t say I was different or better…”

*Somerset* “Ernest Hemingway once wrote, ‘The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.’ I agree with the second part.”

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Interesting clips. (housekeeping)

There’s intellectual cowardice, sure.

There’s also intellectual bullying.

Lest you forget, ye of little bulk, the not-so-long-ago days when people were MADE FUN OF for being smart?

You know…dumb people would physically abuse smart people? Because they were easy targets? Because the dumb people wanted to feel better about themselves, and beating up nerds did that for them?

Remember that? I do.

Which is exactly why I’m not a bully.

To pick on someone and attack them (intellectually) because they’re an easy target…because you want to feel better about yourself, and (mentally) beating up people not as smart as you are does that for you?

It’s like…to yell and scream (literally or figuratively) for your right to be an atheist and against the a$$holes that demand you fall in line with their theism…

And then to demand that everyone fall in line with your atheism, and if they don’t to mercilessly attack them.

You become what you hate.

And you can try that “educating them” bullsh1t all day…

Everyone KNOWS (including you) that you’re NOT demanding theists become atheist because it’s logical…because you believe in educating…because you want to raise overall awareness…or ANY of the “intellectual” reasons ANYONE gives.

Everyone KNOWS, deep down inside, that – while there may be secondary factors involved, and while you may be EXACTLY RIGHT IN EVERYTHING YOU SAY (where applicable…) – the REASON…the REASON you’re calling out theists, and going to rallies, and coining the term “Hitch-slap”, and inviting “debates”, and…

The REASON you’re doing that is the same reason D. Vinyard discovered:

It’s just cuz you’re pissed off.

You’re pissed that your logic has been repressed, and so you’re lashing out.

I mean, I’m not saying in every case I BLAME you…

But that’s what you’re doing. And you KNOW it. So, stop pretending you give a fck about educating theists. Stop pretending you actually believe worldwide atheism would solve all the world’s problems.

You get off on mocking theists. PERIOD.

The same way I LOVE IT whenever I watch Tyson-Douglas and see Douglas DROP that scumbag…that’s you. I mean…it’s as base as that.

It’s the intellectual’s version of watching a hockey fight, or a prize fight, or slowing down to look at a car wreck.

Some dark, angry, primal part of you GETS OFF on it.

You KNOW it’s true. So just admit it, and stop lying when you supposedly believe all about “spreading the truth”.

You CAN’T believe in truth when you LIE about why you’re spreading it.

Now, here’s my version of you watching Hitchens or Dawkins drop an outmatched theist opponent (metaphorically speaking):

*Link Taken Down, Probably Out Of CA/A Angst*

So just go to Youtube and search for “Mike Tyson Buster Douglas”.

There are some exceptions, I’m sure.

And if you’re one of them, feel free to let me know.

But…why does it seem like this (VIS: below) trying to get a snobby/elitist/a$$hole “intellectual” to go mentally one-on-one against me?

I mean, I’M up for it. They just always seem to want Wyatt instead.

Say when.

This isn’t meant for people that think they’re Napoleon or the moon is made of green cheese. And if you’re a fcken scumbag (as defined by me previously) then you shouldn’t be reading this anyways.

But for every other reasonable point on the subjectivity spectrum – and subjective evaluation of events is all life really is (A little bit Hicks, a little bit Tsunetomo) – I think this is important.

Much more simplistic and less powerful than AD’s version of ‘The Shining’ opening theme, but not bad.

Since the greatest example of the perfect LaVeyan Satanist is a parasite; a tick, or mosquito…

Is that what you want to emulate?

In all the vast recesses of your mind, is that really the best aspiration you can come up with?

And, the convenient thing is…since your philosophy STATES that your preservation is the highest law OF THE philosophy, any other aspect of the philosophy is – according to the philosophy itself – disposable if and when necessary.

In the following ending duel, there’s one good LaVeyan example and one HORRIBLE LaVeyan. See if you can pick them out.

I know what you’re thinking…

Did I take six zaps from an ECT treatment or only five?

Well I’m not completely sure myself…

I always asked myself, if I could choose to be “normal”…socially, emotionally, mentally…at the cost of becoming the same sort of a$$hole I’ve railed against for so long, would I? And my answer has always been no. An honest, genuine no. Because who I *am* – the things I believe in and the way I conduct myself – is what is worthwhile about me, what makes me ME. And I wouldn’t want any change – no matter how otherwise benign or effective – that would lessen that importance to me.

That’s a fact, Jack. I had mindless contentment right there in front of me and I told it to go fck itself.

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good scene from a spotty episode. (housekeeping)

If someone asks you a question that cannot accurately be answered “with a simple yes or no”, but they INSIST you do so, perhaps this would be a good question in response:

“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”