It May Be Hug a "Truther" Week....
But don't marry one, says a Slate columnist:
Q. Conspiracy Love: My fiance and I are about to be married. We are both very opposite when it comes to our philosophy. I have been involved with the government for over 20 years in one capacity or another. He has always worked for himself and has never really been on his own. (He still lives with his parents.) I see the world as "bad things sometimes happen to good people" or "bad things happen to bad people." He sees the world as if something bad happens, the U.S. government or some ruling family is behind it. For example, he believes that Charlie Sheen wasn't always crazy and that someone targeted him to make him look crazy because he said that 9/11 was an "inside job."
Yep, Charlie forgot to wear his tinfoil hat and so we scrambled his brains with microwaves. The advice?
A: Charlie Sheen is rich and famous, and crazy, but the rich and famous part helps explain why women keep marrying him. Your fiance isn't rich and famous. So you need to call off the wedding and figure out why you were planning to marry someone who is mentally ill.
Hat Tip: Commenter Mads
Update: A more dramatic solution to spousal Trutherism:
Labels: Advice Columnists, Charlie Sheen, Relationships, Troofer Weddings
posted by Pat @ 11:13 AM
56 comments
56 Comments:
More evidence that joining 9/11 truth is essentially a vow of chastity.
Or maybe Brian and Pat Cowardly can tell us all about their recent sexual conquests? Male or female, it doesn't matter, there is no homophobia here.
Off-topic.
Pat,
Why is the blog deleting comments?
I want an explanation.
GB, I almost never delete comments. Some of the comments get picked up by Blogger's spam checker and I have to remember to review those periodically. Right now I see there are 52 comments in there and I have to go through them one by one to publish only the non-dupe, non-spam ones.
I'm not accusing anyone of deleting the comments. It's obvious that the comments are deleted by blogger.com.
The question is why?
Here's what I've noticed:
[1] Any comment containing a formatted hyperlink (ie., < a href=" " < /a > ) is automatically deleted.
[2] Comments over a certain length (ie., ASCII character count) are automatically deleted.
I don't care if they have rules for length of a comment or if they forbid formatted hyperlinks, but blogger should at least have the common courtesy to make the rules explicit.
Question: What is the character limit per post?
Question: Why are formatted hyperlinks forbidden?
I fail to see how a long post or a post containing a formatted hyperlink can be automatically assumed to be spam. That's ridiculous, not to mention draconian.
Blogspot/Google has a weird thing about links in general. Whenever I post one on my blog I get a notice stating that my blog has been flagged for review. Since nobody reads my blog nobody posts in the comment section so I'm not sure what goes on there. Bottom line is that Blogspot is hinckey about links.
Bill, 4000 characters is the comment length limit set by Blogger. I wish they would give some sort of count like the old Haloscan comments. On the hyperlinks, I am not sure what is going on; I have seen many hyperlinks in older comments with no problems. They may be having problems with spammers taking advantage of the fact that blogger comments pages have a very high Google page rank (8 the last time I checked).
What to do if your wife/husband becomes a 911twoofer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij-AXHifw6Q
"...Bill, 4000 characters is the comment length limit set by Blogger."
Not true.
Blogger also deletes comments under 4000 characters in length.
I don't know what's going on here, and I don't give a flying fuck; however, if this idiocy continues, I will no longer post to this blog.
The present state of the blog is unacceptable. There's no excuse for deleting a legitimate post to the blog.
Furthermore, deleting hyperlinks is draconian. To automatically assume that the presence of a formatted hyperlink equals "spam" is such a brain dead policy that it defies description.
Essentially, blogger is telling us that we have no right to substantiate our argument. That means the blog is reduced to opinion. Again, the present state of the blog is unacceptable.
Essentially, blogger is telling us that we have no right to substantiate our argument. That means the blog is reduced to opinion. Again, the present state of the blog is unacceptable.
It could just be shitty code.
GB, complain to someone who can actually do something about the situation rather than to "the blog".
UtterFail, have you not considered the possibility that excess use of pet names like "goat molester" might trigger Google's spam filter?
"...UtterFail, have you not considered the possibility that excess use of pet names like "goat molester" might trigger Google's spam filter?"
Have you ever considered that you're an idiot, psychopath and proven liar?
Go fuck yourself, sex predator. I've forgotten more about computer science than you'll ever know.
UtterFool, is that a "yes" or a "no"?
Goat fucker, don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure.
Now sit down and give your mind a rest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In other words, you're not willing to admit that "no" you never considered that your repetitive and juvenile insults might not get through Google's spam filter, and you're not willing to try to explain why you think your repetitive and juvenile insults would get through Google's spam filter.
You sure do remind me of Kevin Barrett, Willie Rodriguez, and Craig Ranke.
Keep strumming that Ukuliele, Mr. Salami-fingers.
I've already explained the problem at 14:22 and 9:23. Can you read?
The problem doesn't involve keywords--period. The problem is related to hypertext and post length.
Stick to lying and talking out of both sides of your mouth, sex predator. You're not qualified to make judgments where computer science is concerned.
GutterBall, your belief that Google's spam-filter policy has something to do with computer science is silly.
Brian, this thread is not for you to post dumbspam about internet filters and your homosexual desires for Barrett, Rodriguez, and Ranke. Please take that elsewhere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sex predator, your belief that you know fuck all about computer science is arrogant, not mention a joke.
So, what does the following do, Mr. computer science expert?
ls -l | grep '^d' | sed 's/.* //'
UtterFail, I never claimed to be a computer expert. I don't need to be a computer expert to suppose that Google's spam filters employ (among other things) brute-force keyword searches and that one of your favorite words, "molester", might be on their list.
You keep trotting out these stupid tests.
I don't know beans about shell scripting, but knowing you and your single-bit mind I'll take a wild guess and suppose you've written a script for listing all the directories and replacing them with nothing. That would be the kind of thing you would regard as clever.
Sex predator, that's a filter. If you're such an expert at character string filters, why can't you recognize a filter?
You don't have a clue.
Sure, a filter that passes all directory names on to a stream editor for substitution.
I don't need to know beans about filters to know that among other things they employ string searches and filter out posts containing offensive keywords, just as I don't need to be a mechanical engineer to know that the Greyhound leaving San Jose several times a day will make Austin in 2 days or less.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wrong again, sex predator. But then again, you're always wrong.
The command lists the contents of the directory in long format and searches for directories within the directory ('^d') and feeds them as input to sed (the UNIX stream editor), which will substitute (s) blank space for all characters up to and including the last blank space in the line. In other words, everything but the last word in the directory long list output--the directory name itself--will be removed.
So the question remains: Why do you pretend to have knowledge of EVERY subject--in this case among others, computer science--when you don't have a clue?
I'll give you the answer: You're an arrogant blowhard, who thinks he's an expert on every subject under the sun. When put to the test, however, you fall flat on your face.
Loser.
OK, so my wild guess was right about four or five steps up to the end, except the extent of the deletion. And that's supposed to prove I'm an idiot?
I don't need to know how to write a filter to know they use keywords. Any idiot knows that, and unless you're going to argue that they don't use filters, your knowledge of COBOL is as immaterial as your alleged music career, Mr. Bratwurst Fingers.
Dude, anyone can go to Google and do a search on "sed" or "ls -l", e.g.,
http://www.grymoire.com/Unix/Sed.html
http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2009/07/linux-ls-command-examples/
So no, you didn't provide a guess, and you were completely wrong.
As an example, I can add 9 characters to the command, and completely stump you. e.g.,
ls -al | grep '^d' | sed 's/.* //' | grep '^\.'
And your idiotic idea that says blogger filters on the word "molester," is as brain dead as it is desperate. Blogger doesn't filter the word "molester," as I've just proven.
Don't you have a goat to molest, goat molester?
Loser.
GutterBall, that they let it through once doesn't mean that it's not a filter term. These filters might be smarter than you think, might operate on more than your one-bit algorithm, chump.
You still haven't figured out why your job went to a Pakistani teenager.
Computers don't discriminate--you idiot. I guess they didn't get that far in the remedial GED for losers tutorial. Right, goat molester?
What's the matter, goat molester, are you still upset because I have a family and a career, while you sit at home in your mother's apartment with your thumb shoved up your ass?
I guess if you can't be a success in life, all you have left is sitting in from of your chickenshit Micro$oft Windows box, while turning green with envy, and spewing epithets, troofer propaganda and bald-faced lies.
It must really hurt to know that a Mexican, who works for peanuts, took your "swank" janitorial job at the school for short bus riders.
Don't you have a goat to molest, goat molester?
GutterBall, I wouldn't trade my life for yours even if it came with a ten million dollar signing bonus.
You call your miserable existence "life"? Pathetic.
Now stop squealing, and go slit your wrists--it'll lower your blood pressure, goat molester.
Take your own advice Mr. Phalangeal Edema.
More squealspam, Mr. Microcephalic?
Talk is cheap, goat molester, and so are you.
Poor UtterFail, pwned at every turn by an unemployed janitor.
You looked really really silly lying about NIST's "annealing studies" and claiming the RJ Lee and NRDC reports had quantified the amount of iron microspheres in the dust, and claiming that all 424,000 tons of concrete at the WTC had been pulverized--a claim that is absurd for obvious reasons you're too ignorant to know about.
Yeah, I bet you're not cheap, GutterBall. I bet you charge $300 an hour for your consulting services. How's that working our for you, high-priced spread?
Patting yourself on the back again without justification, gay boi?
Don't break your limpwrist.
Concerning the second paragraph of your latest pack of lies, perhaps you can take a course in remedial reading? There's a slim chance that your reading comprehension may rise to the level of a 6th grader. But, then again, probably not.
And no, I charge $120 per hour for my services, and put I in, on average, 65 hours per week. Either way, I make more money in a month than you make in a year.
It sucks to be you, goat molester.
Working 65 hours a week. Oh so all the time you spend scouring the RJ Lee Report for things you can misrepresent to prop up your lies is beyond that?
Wow. Your wife must not like you very much if she lets you spend your precious free time making a fool of yourself on the internet.
Yawn.
Right, goat molester. I always yawn when I'm interested.
Go yawn at your wife, UtterFail.
Green with envy, aren't you, goat molester?
Nope. As I said, either she's wise to your bullshit and puts up with you or she's so fucking stupid she believes you. Either way she's no prize.
C'mon Brian, let's start talking about normal stuff again.
I have 165 questions for the "widows" about what they were doing on 9/11 and what connection they had to the thermite being placed in the towers. I have gotten zero responses.
Why do you think that is, Brian?
Ian, probably you have gotten no responses because you have misspelled their names, or because you're lying and you never really asked the question.
Let's talk about normal stuff, like how a fire on 98 climbed six floors to 104 without setting 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, or 105 on fire.
Let's talk about why UtterFail's belief that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is absurd. Oh right, nobody cares.
"...Nope. As I said, either she's wise to your bullshit and puts up with you or she's so fucking stupid she believes you. Either way she's no prize."
Oh, that pile of manure carries a lot of weight coming from an habitual liar.
Yawn.
UtterFail keeps coming around to yawn but he can't answer as to why his belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd.
I bet he hasn't even watched the PBS video, that's how ignorant he is.
Ian, probably you have gotten no responses because you have misspelled their names, or because you're lying and you never really asked the question.
False.
Let's talk about normal stuff, like how a fire on 98 climbed six floors to 104 without setting 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, or 105 on fire.
Jet fuel, Brian. A 767 hit the tower. Learn to Google.
Let's talk about why UtterFail's belief that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is absurd. Oh right, nobody cares.
He doesn't believe in pulverized concrete. That's one of your delusions, remember? That and "molten iron" and "symmetry" and "totality" and several other nonsensical things you've repeated 10,000 times before here while everyone laughs at you.
UtterFail keeps coming around to yawn but he can't answer as to why his belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd.
I bet he hasn't even watched the PBS video, that's how ignorant he is.
Brian, this squealspam is a poor attempt to hide from the fact that you can't name a single independent widow who has any questions.
Ian, you can not show how jet fuel spread the fire from 98 to 104. You haven't answered my question as to whether you think your attack baboons scooped up the jet fuel in buckets. Say, do your attack baboons have wings? I remember seeing a documentary about that once.
If Utterfail doesn't believe in pulverized concrete, why does he keep going around squealing about 424,000 tons of the stuff with 56,000 tons of iron microspheres in it?
I think that doco was about someone who went to Australia and was trying to get back home to Kansas.
"...UtterFail keeps coming around to yawn but he can't answer as to why his belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd."
Lying again, Pinocchio?
You're are absolutely shameless.
"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.
Are lies all you have, goat fucker?
After all, so far you've provided not one shred of credible evidence to prove NRDC wrong. The fact remains that the 424,000 tons figure was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven--including you--that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect.
FAIL
Grade: F-
"...If Utterfail doesn't believe in pulverized concrete, why does he keep going around squealing about 424,000 tons of the stuff with 56,000 tons of iron microspheres in it?"
Unlike you, goat fucker, I'm not gay. Thus, the squealing is yours and yours alone.
Don't break your limpwrist, Aunt Fancy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
UtterFail, what you're missing is the fact that NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows anything about the construction of the WTC.
You clearly don't know why this claim is absurd. I can prove it in an instant. I'm biding my time because I want to see if anybody in this forum is informed enough to tell me why NRDC's claim is absurd.
My best guess about why the wrecking crew doesn't spam over the above challenge is because they're so ill-informed that they think that UtterFail is going to answer the question.
He's not, because he hasn't a clue as to why he's full of it.
Big hint: He doesn't know "the first thing" about the construction of the World Trade Center.
Post a Comment
<< Home