Wednesday, May 02, 2012

More Hecklivism from Luke



Note that Luke starts right out with a lie by giving a phony name. Also note that Luke apparently can't read; while Sunnstein mentioned the possibility of banning or taxing conspiracy theories, if you read ahead to the end of the paragraph Luke highlights, it specifically rules those two options out in favor of infiltration.

103 Comments:

At 03 May, 2012 01:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Annoying, isn't he?

Not to worry, folks. Give Luke The Mook 20 years and he'll look just like this guy.

The real question, however, remains unanswered: Will the intrepid Luke The Mook be inspired to wave his wand at little old ladies in Central Park?

Only time will tell.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:49, Blogger Billman said...

No no, lying is ok for a "truth seeker."

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:50, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:53, Blogger John said...

Can we possibly make this thread an "Ignore Brian" thread? Just to see what happens?

 
At 03 May, 2012 09:07, Blogger Ian said...

I will ignore Brian in this thread.

 
At 03 May, 2012 09:30, Blogger John said...

2 off topics: So it seems Al Qaeda was hurt, if not crippled, by our invading Afghanistan.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11519080-bin-laden-told-followers-kill-obama-so-utterly-unprepared-joe-biden-becomes-us-president?lite

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/01/11476990-bin-laden-in-hiding-hatching-horrific-plots-despite-crippling-attacks-on-al-qaida?chromedomain=worldnews

Worth it or no?

Secondly, Ian, what's your choice for best album of 2011? I'm leaning towards M83, but I was an 80s kid.

 
At 03 May, 2012 12:34, Blogger Ian said...

I guess bin Laden never got the memo that Obama is an incompetent who needs teleprompters to think for him, or that he's a secret Muslim who is actually on bin Laden's side.

Anyway, the best album of 2011: Nine Types of Light by TV on the Radio. Definitely they best album they've done so far. I had tickets to see them at Radio City Music Hall last April as they were touring for that album. I was literally 3 rows back. What a concert that was.

Honorable mention goes to El Camino by the Black Keys.

 
At 03 May, 2012 13:36, Blogger John said...

El Camino is a fine album, but it sounds like a compilation of 70s rock bands. My disappointment with 2011 releases is that there isn't one that sounds original. Fleet Foxes sounds like Simon & Garfunkel, M83 sounds like every new wave band from the early 80s etc.

The positive news about the stories I linked to, was that this suggests that even Bin Laden saw his influence waning in the Muslim world just before he was shot. I'll be honest that I've been worried about the influence of fundamental islam in the region, and that seems to have lessened a bit. I could be wrong, though.

 
At 03 May, 2012 13:42, Blogger Ian said...

The positive news about the stories I linked to, was that this suggests that even Bin Laden saw his influence waning in the Muslim world just before he was shot. I'll be honest that I've been worried about the influence of fundamental islam in the region, and that seems to have lessened a bit. I could be wrong, though.

No, I agree with you. I think 9/11 was the high water mark of radical Islam, but the decade of violence since in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere has turned most Muslims off to al Qaeda's nihilism.

The Arab Spring was the final nail in the coffin for al Qaeda. For decades, bin Laden and his ilk sought the violent overthrow of the Egyptian regime. Instead, it came at the hands of peaceful demonstrators, including liberals, secularists, and women. Whatever lingering appeal the group might have had in the Arab world disappeared upon the collapse of the Mubarak government.

 
At 03 May, 2012 14:11, Blogger John said...

Well, I was worried that the Arab Spring would have turned many countries into Iran, but I saw this article that gives me a little more hope:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40334123/ns/world_news-africa/t/candidate-bans-may-ease-rancor-egypt-vote/#.T6Lz_u1rVlY

You may be right about all this, but I am, by nature, a cynic.

 
At 04 May, 2012 16:35, Blogger Len said...

Brian/snug.bug

Are you always going on about "unanswered questions"? I'm still waiting for a reply!

Identify any truthers or debunkers who respect you.

As for the topics you supposedly want to debate you must know the format here is not suited for in depth discussion. Most of us are at JREF if you really want to play ball

 
At 04 May, 2012 18:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The "Arab Spring" has been organic to each country. Tunisia erupted from a "Last Straw" incident.

Egypt was a demonstration which then evolved into a low-scale revolution.

The Lybians are right in between Tunis & Egypt, and I'm pretty sure they thought "Why the hell not?"

Syria is the most interesting because the resistance is made up of survivors from the Iraq resistance. Young Syrians were lured into fighting the US with promises of greatness, only to get creamed. They've returned to Syrian very angry with their leaders. The difference between Syria and the rest of the revolutions is those in the resistance are combat veterans. They will eventually defeat Assad.


My pick for the album of the year is Van Halen's "A Different Kind of Truth" (no pun intended). It fits between Fair Warning, and Diver Down with classic Van Halen sound. It is also David Lee Roth's best writing ever.

 
At 05 May, 2012 02:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, my momma raised me not to be a name-dropper. So I've got a better idea. How about you name the truthers who don't respect me.

As to debunkers, I don't know any. I don't have time for JFEF. There's sometimes some worthwhile discussion there, but mostly it's just a mutual-admiration society where a bunch of not-so-clever-as-they-think-they-are aspies try to top each other's dumb jokes.

 
At 05 May, 2012 06:18, Blogger Len said...

Snuggy buggy,

It's not 'name dropping' if you're responding to question. And it's not anyone you could name is considered prominent outside a small cult. Good lame excuse though.

truthers who think you're an idjit? Let's see Fetzer, Barrett, Rodriguez, the folks at AE911T, Bursill, Broullet, Hicksthe folks at www.911oz.com and many others I'm sure

 
At 05 May, 2012 06:25, Blogger Len said...

Best Album of 2011?

'Stranger Me' - Amy Levere

Honorable Mention (even though it's a retro covers album)- 'The Party Ain't Over' - Wanda Jackson (w/ Jack White)

 
At 05 May, 2012 07:00, Blogger Ian said...

Caught the Red Hot Chili Peppers in concert last night for the first time in 17 years (damn, I'm getting old). They've still got it. Flea did a nice tribute to Adam Yauch on his bass.

 
At 05 May, 2012 09:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2012 13:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len:

Fetzer--is in disgrace and currently making a total fool of himself at TruthandShadows

Barrett--last time I saw him he wanted me to hug him and asked me to submit editorial comments on his book

Rodriguez--It appears he's no longer a member of the truth movement. He now denies (falsely) that he ever claimed there were bombs in the basement.

AE911T--We've had disagreements, AFAIK I'm still in good standing

Bursill--I never heard anything negative from him

Broullet--saw her a week ago, she was nice as pie

Hicks--When he was coming to speak in Berkeley I let it be known that I intended to go there and challenge his irresponsible sponsorship of the writings of lyong bigots. So there I was, waiting, when he phoned in claiming he was lost and couldn't make the gig. He never showed. He pissed off the Green Party and he tried to start his own part and now it seems he's now a non-entity.

The folks at www.911oz.com--I'll suppose you mean mean clowns like onesliceshort and Combatant and Rob Balsamo.

 
At 05 May, 2012 14:29, Blogger Len said...

Snuggy, all prominent TM leader are idiots, but still haven't answered my question, who in the TM respects you.

And no no one here will believe you if you say you're friendly with Broulet. She and her husband have complained about you stalking her.

 
At 05 May, 2012 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, please provide your source for the idea that Mr. and Mrs. Brouillet have complained that I have stalked her. That claim is a lie.

 
At 05 May, 2012 14:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 05 May, 2012 14:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your continued citation of a sourceless text of a dialog between anonymous internet posters, which text is posted by a lying bigot, only shows how gullible you are. And where, by the way, does that document say that Mr. and Mrs. Brouillet have complained that I have stalked her?

Barrett was complaining that I was stalking him because some people on the internet were pointing out that he lies. Kind of a stretch.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, do you ever stop lying?

Or better yet, will you ever STFU?

The "sourceless text of a dialog" is a reproduction of a Screw Loose Change thread that was posted on 29 September 2009.

You're an underhanded right-wing extremist, sex predator and a compulsive liar.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you." -- Carol Brouillet

Thus, you're not just a sex stalker, you're a home wrecker. Asshole.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I challenge you to prove that Barrett's sourceless text is a reproduction of a ScrewLooseChange thread posted in 2009. Only an idiot would believe that.

Thanks for showing that Mrs. Brouillet never complained that I stalked her. Instead she shared her opinion about what she thought was in my mind.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

UtterFag, I don't have to "prove" anything, scumbag. I witnessed the thread as it unfolded back in September and October of 2009.

The thread was deleted in 2010 when Pat and James changed blog comment management software.

Furthermore, Carol Brouillet has REPEATEDLY accused you of trying to wreck her marriage. Any man who harasses a married woman is, BY DEFINITION, a sex stalker.

And if I was her husband...well, let's just say that you wouldn't be here today, goat fucker, because when I finished beating the shit out of you, they'd bury your remains in a matchbox.

Feeling lucky, Pinocchio?

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I hear "The Avengers" is pretty awesome. I'll catch a matinee this week.

 
At 05 May, 2012 16:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

So GutterFag, were you one of Randi's boys back in the '70's? Is that why you're so bitchy?

So where do you get the idea that the witnessing of a thread by an anonymous internet poster validates its authenticity as re-posted by a bigoted liar?

Any statement by Carol to the effect that I tried to wreck her marriage must be based in several phone calls that someone in her household claims to have received, which phone calls were not from me That you lend credence to that kind of evidence only shows your epistemic incompetence.

You can not back up your claims.

 
At 05 May, 2012 16:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

A "bigoted liar"?

Kevin Barrett reproduced the thread, not you.

And I don't have to back up my claims. Anyone who frequented this blog back in 2009 can verify that I'm telling the truth.

And don't forget goat fucker, "New Yorker" is Ian.

So lie to us again, felcher.

 
At 05 May, 2012 16:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Kevin Barrett, who "reproduced" the thread, is a bigoted liar. He told Noam Chomsky that he had lost a tenure-track position. Barrett never had a tenure-track position.

Your inability to support the claim that I stalked Carol Brouillet is noted. She has never made any representations to that effect.

And you never answered the question. Were you one of Randi's boys back in the '70's? He had a lot of them, it appears.

 
At 05 May, 2012 16:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I have backed up my argument, scumbag.

"...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you." -- Carol Brouillet

Why would Mrs. Brouillet leave her husband for a lying, bisexual nut-bag?

Thus, we have more proof that you're a delusional poofter.

 
At 05 May, 2012 16:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for showing that you can not back up your claim that I stalked Ms. Brouillet. All you have is Ms. Brouillet's expression of her opinion of what was in my mind.

 
At 05 May, 2012 17:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, you're a proven liar, not an arbiter of "truth."

Thus, no one cares what you think.

I have backed up my claim, your never-ending lies notwithstanding.

You were kicked out of the "truth movement." The troofers aren't fooled by a psuedo-troofer, and that's precisely why they kicked your ass out of the movement./

And here's more proof that you're a liar:

"...The evidence comes from Kevin Barrett's report of what Carol said. Barrett is a liar. He told Chomsky he had lost a tenure-track position when in fact he was a temporary part-time lecturer." -- The goat fucker, 5 October, 2009 - 2:15 pm.

And today you wrote the following:

"...Kevin Barrett, who "reproduced" the thread, is a bigoted liar. He told Noam Chomsky that he had lost a tenure-track position. Barrett never had a tenure-track position." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 16:12.

Who do you think you're fooling, goat fucker?

Now, lie to us again, scumbag.

 
At 05 May, 2012 17:25, Blogger John said...

You guys couldn't control yourselves for one fucking thread, could you?

 
At 05 May, 2012 17:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Then get off your ass and petition Pat and James to ban the lying scumbag.

That's when this stupidity will end.

And remember, if you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 
At 05 May, 2012 18:21, Blogger John said...

Yeah, right. Blame Pat & James because you can't control yourself for one thread.

No, I've got a better idea. Have fun, you guys.

 
At 05 May, 2012 18:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let me clue you in, pal.

I don't take orders from you, John. Is that simple enough for you?

And yes, Pat and James are at fault. They broke their promise. It's as simple as that.

Adios, pendejo.

 
At 05 May, 2012 20:12, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Ignoring Brian has the most devastating effect. He can't deal with it.

If you want to argue with Brian it's actually your right on Screw Loose Change to do so, just as it is Brian's right to make a fool out himself here too.

I'll just remind you Brian is a psychopath. You can cite all the scientific facts you want, Brian either doesn't understand them, and if he does they don't matter. People with his condition can never admit they're wrong because it goes to ego. Brian is a damaged individual, ego is all he has left. So he will never concede a single point. He even refused to check a NOAA link to see if it rained in New York, a person with a health mind just doesn't do this.

So Bill, if you really want to win you have to stand Brian in a corner, and ignore him. He can't defend against silence, and it will eat away at him.

Just my .02.....

 
At 05 May, 2012 20:49, Blogger Len said...

So Brian,

I guess you tell us that they quotes from/about you on these pages were made up as well even though the 1st is from Broullet's site

http://www.communitycurrency.org/blog.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com.br/2011/05/brian-good-chickens-out-on-debate-with.html

Still waiting for the name of 1, one, a single solitary truther who respects you.

Can't you name even one?

And no your mom doesn't count

 
At 05 May, 2012 20:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

That said, Brian is such an easy target it's hard to resist. We could have a Brian Goode drinking game:

If he hijacks a thread in under 4 posts - drink.

When he claims molten steel was seen by people who didn't see it - drink.

If he mentions a PhD - 1 drink for each.

When he alleges thermite was used in WTC7, then denies he claims thermite was used in WTC7 - drink.

Whenever he says he's doing it for the Widows - drink.

If he mentions how you can build bridge, or electronic circuit boards out of cardboard - drink. 2 drinks if he mentions both within two posts.

Meatball on a fork - slam the bottle.

When he offers up an analogy which makes no sense - drink.

Anything he implies Richard Gage knows what he's talking about - drink (wait until you've stopped laughing)

Anytime he posts a quote out of context - drink.

The key here is to come up with a "Screw Loose Change" label with our own wine/micro-brew as there will be a lot of sauce consumed.

 
At 06 May, 2012 08:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you have not only NOT backed up your claim, but you seek to distract from that fact by making more unbacked-up claims.

There is no contradiction between my two statements. I don't believe your claims that you have a Master's degree, UtterFail. Anyone who had a Master's could know that temporary part-time lectureships are not tenure-track positions.

MGF, your claim that I don't understand your scientific facts when in fact I'm the one who has to lecture you about freshman chemistry is a real hoot.

It still hasn't rained here about 68 hours after I issued my demand that it rained. Following John's logic, that's proof that rain doesn't exist.

Len, my momma taught me not to be a name-dropper. Maybe you weren't raised so good, which might explain why you're hanging around with a bunch of losers at the self-esteem-building club on a Saturday night.

 
At 06 May, 2012 08:47, Blogger barogers619 said...

If I ever wanted to attain evidence of how ignorant people can be in the face of evidence; I would come here and use the poster snug.bug as an example.

"You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again,"-Carol

"Thanks for showing that Mrs. Brouillet never complained that I stalked her. Instead she shared her opinion about what she thought was in my mind"-snug.bug

Yes she shared that your mind was full of deluded thoughts and sexual perversions. The fact that she stated she doesnt feel safe around you makes one think you are a creep, usually creeps are stalkers. I am surprised this lady didnt call the police on Good or at least threaten too.

Thanks for the laugh and material, guys!

“How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner self is telling him.”-Frank Herbert

 
At 06 May, 2012 09:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2012 09:09, Blogger Len said...

Brian,

As I already explained to you, "It's not 'name dropping' if you're responding to question. And it's not as if anyone you could name is considered prominent outside a small cult."

Hilarious that you're using your supposed good manners as an excuse but drag in my mom into this and insult me. And speaking of our mothers, at least I don't live with mine - haven't done so since I was 18.

And if you were so well brought up why did you write "Maybe you weren't raised so GOOD..."? What did you fail elementary school English? ‘Raised’ is a verb, ‘good’ is an adjective and you should have used ‘very’ instead of ‘so’.

So who faked Broulet’s comments on HER site? Or does she really see you as some sort of stalker?

 
At 06 May, 2012 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, where do you get the notion that there's a "question exemption" that makes name-dropping OK? I said "Maybe you weren't raised so GOOD" because I wanted to meet you at your level. I thought using "well" might be taken as snobbery.

Brouillet didn't say anything about stalking. She said that delusions she (erroneously) believed I held made her feel uncomfortable.

b19, you are jumping to unjustified conclusions and larding the facts with your own fantasies. Where did Ms. Brouillet say anything about sexual perversions? Where does she say anything about stalking?

You have to understand the context at the time. Ms. Brouillet had been closely associating herself with the work of two activists that I considered damaging to her credibility. One was the bigot, liar, and incompetent scholar Dr. Kevin Barrett; the other was a popular speaker whose renown depended on claims that were not true. Both can be very charming in person, and Ms. Brouillet found it very difficult to admit that she had been scammed by these two. Part of her grieving process was of course the denial/anger stage. They couldn't be scamsters! Brian must be wrong! She therefore attributed to me the delusions necessary to justify her frantic denial mechanisms.

Furthermore, both of these clowns construed any criticism of either one of them anywhere on line as "stalking" done by Brian Good--lack of evidence to the contrary. It's not like there was only one guy in the universe who knew they were liars.

The truth about these two is now widely known and I have been vindicated. Ms. Brouillet had no cause to call the cops because I never gave her any cause to call the cops.

 
At 06 May, 2012 09:39, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Hey Brian, on another thread I stated that Snowcrash was your pal. I did so
because you and he are the only Troofactioners who post here, thinking you were a Troofaction tag team as it were. I was clearly wrong about that.

 
At 06 May, 2012 11:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...There is no contradiction between my two statements. I don't believe your claims that you have a Master's degree, UtterFail. Anyone who had a Master's could know that temporary part-time lectureships are not tenure-track positions."

When did I say there was a "contradiction"?

And when did I say anything about Barrett's tenure or lack thereof?

This is proof positive that you can't read.

In fact, I proved beyond a doubt that you are the Brian Good who stalked and sexually harassed Carol.

You used the same language and argument yesterday that you used in 2009. For example,

"...The evidence comes from Kevin Barrett's report of what Carol said. Barrett is a liar. He told Chomsky he had lost a tenure-track position when in fact he was a temporary part-time lecturer." -- The goat fucker, 5 October, 2009 - 2:15 pm.

"...Kevin Barrett, who 'reproduced' the thread, is a bigoted liar. He told Noam Chomsky that he had lost a tenure-track position. Barrett never had a tenure-track position." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 16:12.

Thus, you lied.

You are Brian Good. The same subliterate sexual degenerate who stalked and harassed Carol. The same lying retard who's the subject of the following exposé:

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.

So stop lying to us, goat fucker.

And I have a questions, scumbag: Have you made any death threats lately, stalker?

 
At 06 May, 2012 12:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

What did I lie about? I don't get your point. Do you dispute the fact that Barrett told Chomsky he had lost a tenure-track position? Do you dispute the fact that Barrett never had a tenure-track position to lose?

You never answered my question. Were you one of Randi's boys back in the 70's? Is that where you got your arcane vocabulary?

 
At 06 May, 2012 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You lied when you claimed that I cited a "sourceless text."

In fact, the article I cite is authentic. It's filled with your bilge--the same specious, denialist bullshit and the same language you use to this day.

E.g.,

"...NY, I have proven that the widows have 273 questions pending. See justicefor911.org appendix 4. You are a liar." -- The goat fucker, 2 October 2009.

"...BS, no proof has been offered that I am petgoat. Only empty assertions. I have not lied." -- The goat fucker, 1 October 2009.

"...NY, I'm not lying about anythng. 91% of the widows' 300 questions were never answered." -- The goat fucker, 1 October 2009.

"...You're lying when you claim nobody cares that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered. The widows care, and they're not nobody." -- The goat fucker, 4 October 2009.

Again, you lied when you claimed that the article is a "sourceless text." You know damned well that the content of the article is authentic.

Thus, you're a liar and a degenerate who stalked and sexually harassed an innocent women with absolutely no regard for her marital status, let alone her wish to remain unmolested by an insane, lying, bisexual pervert with serious boundary and mommy issues.

You're scum, goat fucker.

 
At 06 May, 2012 12:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's a sourceless text. The source does not exist. Therefore even if it once existed in some form or another we can not know what the liar Barrett may have added or subtracted.

I'll never take Barrett's word for it that he hasn't altered a text. The fact that you're willing to only shows your callow intellect.

Your argument that if I lied about Barrett's article, that therefore I stalked and harassed someone is only a further demonstration of your incompetence.

 
At 06 May, 2012 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Once again, you're 180 degrees out of phase with reality, scumbag.

The text is sourced. The text contains the following link at the top of the document:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Furthermore, you've provided not a shred of evidence to show that the article was modified by Barrett or anyone else. Thus, YOU are the one who made the "sourceless" claim.

As a result, you're not only a liar and a sex stalker, you're a hypocrite.

That you stalked and harassed Carol Brouillet is born out by her own words, which I sourced up-thread. I never once claimed that if you lied about Barrett's article, that therefore you stalked and harassed her. I don't need to make that idiotic claim, all I need are her words.

"...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you." -- Carol Brouillet

Thus, you're guilty of stuffing words in my mouth and then attacking your own words as though they were mine. In other words, another straw man argument.

The only person who has demonstrated his incompetence can be found between your chair and your keyboard.

Cretin.

And finally, you didn't answer my question, scumbag: Have you made any death threats lately, stalker?

 
At 06 May, 2012 13:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the "source" link doesn't work. Thus the text is not sourced and your belief that it is only indicates your incompetence.

Just as with Willie's email that he refused to authenticate, Barrett's text is unautheticated. There's no reason to believe any of it. Did you never have any college courses at all? Sure looks that way.

Carol's words say nothing about stalking and harassment. She says that she believes that I had delusions. In fact my "delusions" that her friends were liars have been shown to be true.

You argued that I had lied when I said the article is a "sourceless text". You then concluded: "Thus, you're a liar and a degenerate who stalked and sexually harassed an innocent women". Since there is no connection between those two propositions, it was an irrational argument. It's like arguing "You ran out of gas, and thus you drive a Porsche."

Your inability to admit when you are wrong is a character flaw, ButtGale. Try getting honest and see if your life doesn't improve.

 
At 06 May, 2012 14:34, Blogger Ian said...

You know, I really wish Jason Isbell had never left the Drive-By Truckers. The work he did with them, particularly on "Decoration Day", is fantastic.

 
At 06 May, 2012 14:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...the 'source' link doesn't work."

That's another brazen lie. The link resolves to the Screw Loose Change archive, where Pat's original post (OP) is there for all to see.

The thread is missing because, as I stated above, you moron, the thread was deleted by Pat and James when in 2010 they changed their blog comment management software. That in no way proves that the thread, which is mirrored by Kevin Barrett, was modified by Barrett or anyone else.

Thus, we can see, once again, that YOU are the one who made the "sourceless" claim.

The goat fucker squeals, "...Carol's words say nothing about stalking and harassment."

False.

That she didn't use the words "stalking" or "harassment" proves nothing. Her words clearly indicate that you in fact did stalk and harass her. Her words are unambiguous and clear:

"...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you." -- Carol Brouillet

Furthermore, Carol Brouillet has REPEATEDLY accused you of trying to wreck her marriage. Again, any alleged "man" who harasses a married woman is, by definition, a sex stalker.

The goat fucker lies, "...You argued that I had lied when I said the article is a "sourceless text". You then concluded: "Thus, you're a liar and a degenerate who stalked and sexually harassed an innocent women". Since there is no connection between those two propositions, it was an irrational argument."

False.

That you stalked and harassed Carol Brouillet is born out by her own words, which I sourced above. I never once claimed that if you lied about Barrett's article, that therefore you stalked and harassed her. I don't need to take that idiotic line of argumentation, that's your specialty, jackass. All I need are her words. And her words prove that you're a liar, sex stalker and a pervert with boundary issues.

And, finally, that you constantly resort to distortion of my argument conclusively demonstrates your "character flaw," UtterFag.

And for a shameless liar of your ilk to ask anyone to get "honest" is not only hilarious, but truly pathetic.

Thus, I'll ask you again: Have you made any death threats lately, stalker?

 
At 06 May, 2012 14:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

The thread is not at the link you cite, thus the link does not work. It does not validate the text Barrett posted. You have no reason to believe that Barrett "mirrored" the text. Your inability to comprehend these basic issues involving data integrity shows your claims that you're an IT professional are completely bogus.

Carol's text says nothing about stalking and harassment. It complains of what she believed was in my mind. Your continued insistence that the text means something other than what it says, and your continued insistence on redefining the meanings of words to fit your opinions only shows your own confirmation bias.

You said that because I lied about Barrett's article, "thus" I was a stalker. That's what you said. If you don't want to be called out for saying stupid shit, don't say stupid shit.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:07, Blogger Ian said...

On another topic, who here likes to visit the US National Parks? I know some people make it a life's mission to visit every one, including ridiculously remote ones like Kobuk Valley and Gates of the Arctic in Alaska.

I've been to Acadia, Shenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain, Zion, Arches, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Redwoods, Crater Lake, Mount Rainier, and Olympic.

I'm not sure which one is my favorite, as they were all wonderful in different ways. Still, the sense of awe one gets when you see the Grand Canyon for the first time is impossible to describe.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...You have no reason to believe that Barrett 'mirrored' the text...[blah][blah][blah]."

False.

I watched the thread as it unfolded back in 2009. I know it's authentic.

There is no issue of "data integrity."

FACT: You have not provided so much as one scintilla of evidence to show that Barrett or anyone else modified the thread. You're making 100% fact-free allegations without the benefit of evidence.

The goat fucker lies, "...Carol's text says nothing about stalking and harassment."

Bullshit.

Her words are clear an unambiguous:

"...You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again" -- Carol Brouillet

You sexually harassed her, stalked her and tried to break up her marriage. Thus, you are, by definition, a sex stalker who is obviously guilty of wanton sexual harassment.

The goat fucker continues to lie and distort, "...You said that because I lied about Barrett's article, 'thus' I was a stalker."

No, that's not what I said--you sub-literate jackass. My words were written in the CONTEXT of your "sourceless text" lie. I said that Carol Brouillet's own words prove that you're a pervert and a sex stalker. And that is proven true by my comment at time stamp 05 May, 2012 15:24, where I originally cited Carol Brouillet and referred to you as a sex stalker and a home wrecker.

Once again, we can see that you're 180 degrees out of phase with reality. But that's to be expected because you're not only a pervert and a sex stalker, you're a psychopath, and therefore, a compulsive liar.

So should we expect less from you, pervert? Probably not.

So when do you plan to provide evidence to show that Kevin Barrett "modified" the mirrored SLC thread?

I won't hold my breath waiting for substantiation to back up your 100% fact-free bilge.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And don't change the subject, goat fucker.

You allege that Kevin Barrett "modified" the mirrored SLC thread; thus, the burden of proof rest on your shoulders and your shoulders alone.

So put up or shut up, goat fucker. Where's your evidence?

I'll tell you where your "evidence" is, pervert, but we'll need a World-class proctologist and brain surgeon to find it.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your claim that you can authenticate from memory an 18,000-word document only shows you for a fool.

I didn't say Barrett modified the thread. I said there's no way to know if he did or didn't. And since he is a man of unquestionably poor integrity, there is no reason to believe that his "mirroring" bears any resemblance to the original--if there ever was an original.

Guitar Bill, kindly provide me with the contact information for your legal counsel.

Your claim that Carol referred to me as "a sex stalker and a home wrecker" is a lie. Your repeated unfounded claims that I sexually harassed Carol Brouillet and stalked her and tried to break up her marriage are libelous.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...your claim that you can authenticate from memory an 18,000-word document only shows you for a fool."

Your encroaching senility is no reflection on the quality of my memory--which is naturally superior to the shit-filled orb that rests on your spindly shoulders.

The goat fucker squeals, "...I didn't say Barrett modified the thread. I said there's no way to know if he did or didn't."

Which proves what? In other words, you're just babbling, while making another idiotic argument from ignorance (where ignorance is defined as lack of evidence to the contrary).

You just can't "debate" without lies and logical fallacies, can you, UtterFag?

The goat fucker squeals, "...kindly provide me with the contact information for your legal counsel."

I'm not under any obligation to provide you with information, pervert.

So sue me, Pinocchio.

Your empty threats and bald-faced lies have me shakin' in my boots. LOL!

Thus, I'll ask you again: Have you made any death threats lately, stalker?

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your belief is noted that we should be impressed when an anonymous internet poster claims to be able to authenticate an 18,000 word text. Thanks for demonstrating your incompetence yet again.

It's not about suing you. It's about stating for the record that Pat and James are running a blog that permits people to engage in libel.

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't proven that I libeled you.

How many times must I tell you, jackass? Your opinion is not a substitute for authentic adjudication.

The opinion of a proven liar, pervert and sex stalker isn't worth a pile of compost.

So when do you plan to provide evidence to show that Kevin Barrett "modified" the mirrored SLC thread? Otherwise your entire argument is exposed as wind based on a glaring logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

You really are an idiot, goat fucker--not to mention a pervert, liar and a stalker. And you prove it on a daily basis.

So when do you plan to sue, Mr. Vexatious Litigation?

I'm shakin' in my boots. LOL!

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have proven that you'd libeled me. You have made defamatory claims that you can not back up and that are not true, and you continue to make them after they have been shown to be false.

I didn't say Barrett modified the thread. I said we can't trust that he didn't. I'm sorry you reason like a six-year-old but it's not my fault.

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...I have proven that you'd libeled me. You have made defamatory claims that you can not back up and that are not true, and you continue to make them after they have been shown to be false."

No, that's another bald-faced lie. Your own words prove that you've "proven" absolutely nothing.

I used Carol Brouillet's allegations against you.

FACT: Carol Brouillet is a self-admitted friend of Kevin Barrett. Surely she knows about the 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked! thread, and has no doubt read the thread on several occasions.

This is damning evidence against you, goat fucker. Why? Because after all these years she has never disputed the evidence that was presented against you by CBSF, New Yorker, and others who participated in that particular thread. Obviously, she DOESN'T dispute the authenticity of the allegations SHE made against you.

Why is that, goat fucker?

Your beef isn't with me or SLC. If any legal claims can be brought (yeah right, that will NEVER happen, because you're a liar and a coward), they should be directed to your accuser, Carol Brouillet, not those who repeat her allegations--you damned fool. And the courts will agree with my assessment. So shove your empty threats.

So why are you deathly afraid to confront Carol Brouillet? Hiding something, goat fucker? Of course you're hiding something. It's the only logical explanation for your steadfast refusal to seek redress in the courts. After all, if you have real evidence to support your side of the argument, it should be child's play for you to prove that Carol Brouillet libeled you in a real court of law, as opposed to making empty threats to uninvolved third parties who have nothing to do with the dispute and babbling like a homeless schizophrenic.


The goat fucker whines, "...I didn't say Barrett modified the thread. I said we can't trust that he didn't."

Right! Then you admit that your entire argument is wind based on a logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

Thanks for making my point, genius.

So piss into the wind to your black heart's content, scumbag. I couldn't care less about your empty legal threats.

Any more wind for us, gasbag?

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This is like watching two old people fuck.

Ian -- check out SalemFM.com. It's waaaay too hip for me but I think you'd dig the mix.

 
At 06 May, 2012 19:38, Blogger barogers619 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2012 19:40, Blogger barogers619 said...

LOL!!! A truther talking about taking ones conversation out of context !!

Lets break it down for you Brian since either you have poor reading comprehension or the denial you face is blinding.

"You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me"-Carol Broulette

Now a crush usually involves sexual fantasies of some kind and sexual pervets/stalkers are the type who think every women they come in contact with has the hots for them. The fact that SHE thinks you have a crush on her implies alot.

"Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, "-Carol Broulette

People usually only feel unsafe around people who they think are going to commit harm to them. So Brian, either she thinks you are a murderer, rapist, or one of the many other dangerous psychopaths.


"Brouillet didn't say anything about stalking. She said that delusions she (erroneously) believed I held made her feel uncomfortable."-snugbug

Look at how you twist her words around, does she know you are doing this? Broullet actually stated that your delusions were erroneous and that you made her feel UNSAFE. There is a big difference, snug ,between unsafe and uncomfortable.

And also you talk about that Carol "believeED"(past tense) like she has now changed her mind. if one was to contact Carol, would she state that she believed(past tense) or still believes(present tense). What would Carol think about what you said concerning her anger/denial issues?

Dont worry lets email her and find out ourselves!!

 
At 06 May, 2012 20:26, Blogger Len said...

”Len, where do you get the notion that there's a "question exemption" that makes name-dropping OK?”

I didn’t say it “makes name-dropping OK” I said it makes it NOT “name-dropping”, I got that notion from my decades as a native speaker of English. Dictionary editors agree with me on that.
“the studied but seemingly casual mention of prominent persons as associates done to impress others”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/name-dropping
1. “The practice of casually mentioning famous or important people or the titles of their works, often subtly implying familiarity or association, in order to impress others.”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/name-dropping
“when someone talks about famous people that they have met, often pretending that they know them better than they really do, in order to appear more important and special”
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/name-dropping

Do really think anyone buys your lame excuses?

”I said "Maybe you weren't raised so GOOD" because I wanted to meet you at your level. I thought using "well" might be taken as snobbery.”

LOL that excuse is about as convincing as, “Doc, a good friend of mine can get it up, what should he do?” You thought using standard English as taught in 1st grade “might be taken as snobbery”?!? Point to where I’ve used such poor grammar.

“Brouillet didn't say anything about stalking. She said that delusions she (erroneously) believed I held made her feel uncomfortable.”

She said you were “totally obsessed with attacking Kevin Barrett and William (and indirectly- me)” and assumed this was due to sexual jealously leading to “ending our friendship” and her “cutting all contact with [you]”. I cited her as an example of “truthers who don't respect [you]” and she certainly qualifies unless you can cite where she indicated her views had changed.

 
At 06 May, 2012 20:33, Blogger Len said...

About an hour ago on a Brazilian news program they had a segment about men who beat and in some case kill their current or ex wives/ girlfriends. One guy who was locked up because his ex charged him with assault and harassment said "I'm sure she loves me, I absolutely sure"

Who does that sound like?

 
At 06 May, 2012 21:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, why would you expect Ms. Brouillet to take on a pack of bullying, blackmailing liars if she doesn't have to? She did not accuse me of stalking and death threats. You did. You are thus the libeler. She simply expressed an erroneous opinion about what she believed was in my mind.

What makes you think I'm afraid of Carol Brouillet? You make shit up.

You clearly don't know what an argument from ignorance is. An argument from ignorance would be arguing that lack of proof to the contrary proves that Barrett falsified the text. I didn't say Barrett falsified the text. I said we can't know whether he did or not. That's simply a fact.

b19, I don't see why you should indulge in prurient fantasizing about someone you don't even know. For you to deduce the existence of perversion from someone's belief that there's a crush is pretty twisted. She didn't say she felt unsafe around me. She knew I hadn't murdered anyone in months--and that certainly I'd never murdered anyone who didn't deserve it.

Len, thanks for proving my point that naming names to impress others is name-dropping. That's why I refuse to name names to impress you. I have no reason to care if you're impressed or not.

Ah, thanks for bringing up the real point. Carol was upset because I exposed her friends as liars. She considered this an indirect attack on her. She could not believe that such charming fellows could be liars, and so she invented the notion that I was jealous of them. Why I should be jealous of a couple of ugly old fat guys she never explained.

 
At 07 May, 2012 01:09, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian, is this libelous?


"I wonder who Anna [Eshoo] will party with? I bet it will be a well-funded party. Apparently she raised almost a million and a half in "campaign"contributions, and spent almost one million three on her "campaign."What campaign? I got a couple of pamphlets in the mail. A million five every two years is a lot of grease!"

 
At 07 May, 2012 06:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

No. It's true.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Other fun facts about Anna's finances: 70% of her contributions come from outside her district and 50% come from out of state. It's political hacks like Anna that are screwing up this country and justly earning Congress an approval rating of just 13%.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:14, Blogger Len said...

BG

Broulett accused you of hassling her and her friends due to sexual jealousy; at best (worst) saying she accused you of “stalking” was hyperbole. You claim she was mistaken, of course anyone who criticizes you is stupid and/or crazy and/or mistaken and/or a liar, it’s almost as if there is some conspiracy against you, LOL. In any case she qualifies as one of “the truthers who don't respect [you]”.

As for ’name dropping’, note the use of ‘casual’/’casually’ in the first 2 definitions, the relevant definitions of the term are:

“1. happening by chance; fortuitous: a casual meeting.
2.
without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing: a casual remark.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casual

If you are responding to a question you reply is neither “by chance” nor “without definite serious intention” nor “careless or offhand; passing.” As for the third if you are responding a question you not naming the people “ to appear more important and special”

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

She did not say I harassed her. She said that because I was attacking her friends (actually I was exposing their lies and the sickness behind Barrett's V-for-Vendetta vigilante rebellion fantasies) that I was indirectly attacking her. You guys can't even read a simple declaratory paragraph without embellishing it. I'm not surprised that you're confused about 9/11.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:23, Blogger Ian said...

You know what's a really underrated album? "Adventure" by Television. Everyone (rightly) commends "Marquee Moon" for being one of the all-time great albums, but "Adventure" is fantastic as well and deserves more recognition, IMHO.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...why would you expect Ms. Brouillet to take on a pack of bullying, blackmailing liars if she doesn't have to? She did not accuse me of stalking and death threats. You did. You are thus the libeler. She simply expressed an erroneous opinion about what she believed was in my mind."

False.

She said that she feels unsafe in your presence, and she avoids you like plague. She also accused you of attempting to break up her marriage. Others have claimed that emails from Carol Brouillet accuse you of making "death threats."

Again, the only person who potentially libeled you was your accuser, Carol Brouillet. So what are you afraid of, Pinocchio?

The goat fucker squeals, "...You clearly don't know what an argument from ignorance is. An argument from ignorance would be arguing that lack of proof to the contrary proves that Barrett falsified the text."

Yep, and that's precisely what you did up-thread (See time stamps 05 May, 2012 14:57 and 05 May, 2012 15:31).

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...I didn't say Barrett falsified the text. I said we can't know whether he did or not. That's simply a fact."

False.

That's not what you said at all, liar. Here's what you wrote:

"...your continued citation of a sourceless text of a dialog between anonymous internet posters, which text is posted by a lying bigot, only shows how gullible you are...I challenge you to prove that Barrett's sourceless text is a reproduction of a ScrewLooseChange thread posted in 2009. Only an idiot would believe that." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 14:57 and 05 May, 2012 15:31

Thus, you're arguing that lack of evidence is "evidence," which invalidates the content of the thread. And that's a naked argument from ignorance.

So, once again, we see that you simply refuse to "debate" in good faith. All you have are lies, distortions and logical fallacies.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence. Learn to read.

Who has claimed that emails from Carol complain that I made death threats? I never got those emails.

You libeled me. Carol did not accuse me of stalking and making death threats. You did. You lied. You libeled me.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance at all. Learn to read. I said that only an idiot would believe that Barrett's text was a true copy. That's not saying I've proved it's false. I don't think you ever went to college.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence."

False.

"...Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again." -- Carol Brouillet

What were you saying, liar?

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...I'm not making an argument from ignorance at all. Learn to read. I said that only an idiot would believe that Barrett's text was a true copy. That's not saying I've proved it's false. I don't think you ever went to college."

That's right, goat fucker, simply ignore the evidence I presented against you and pretend that it doesn't exist.

That's not what you wrote at all. Here's what you wrote:

"...your continued citation of a sourceless text of a dialog between anonymous internet posters, which text is posted by a lying bigot, only shows how gullible you are...I challenge you to prove that Barrett's sourceless text is a reproduction of a ScrewLooseChange thread posted in 2009. Only an idiot would believe that." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 14:57 and 05 May, 2012 15:31

Again, you're arguing that lack of evidence is "evidence," which somehow, in your diseased mind, invalidates the content of the thread. And that is, by definition, an argument from ignorance.

It's clear who never went to university, goat fucker, and you'll find him between your chair and your keyboard.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 May, 2012 16:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence. Learn to read.

Do you think repeating the same incompetent arguments improves them?

I'm not arguing that lack of evidence is evidence. I'm arguing that it's lack of evidence.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that !T != F.

 
At 07 May, 2012 18:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence. Learn to read."

"...Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again." -- Carol Brouillet

Keep reading the part that says "I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone" until the meaning penetrates your 8-foot thick, steel-reinforced concrete skull.

The goat fucker squeals, "...Do you think repeating the same incompetent arguments improves them?"

The truth is the truth.

Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question, Pinocchio?

The goat fucker brays, "...I'm not arguing that lack of evidence is evidence."

Yes, you are, goat fucker.

In fact, you've offered two arguments that are in opposition to one another ([1] "...your continued citation of a sourceless text of a dialog between anonymous internet posters, which text is posted by a lying bigot, only shows how gullible you are...I challenge you to prove that Barrett's sourceless text is a reproduction of a ScrewLooseChange thread posted in 2009. Only an idiot would believe that." And [2] "I'm arguing that it's lack of evidence."), while simultaneously agreeing with both.

In other words, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. What Orwell (Eric Blair) would call "doublethink."

Again, we can see that you simply refuse to "debate" in good faith. All you have are lies, distortions and logical fallacies.

The goat fucker squeals, "...You seem to be unable to comprehend that !T != F."

Don't condescend to me--you double-talking bullshitter.

Tell us more about ΔT, you science illiterate cretin? Or perhaps you can contradict yourself again, scumbag?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 May, 2012 18:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence. Learn to read.

Challenging you to support your empty claim was not an argument of ignorance. It was proving the positive assertion that you can not support your claim.

You're really not equipped for this. Have you considered a career in hotel logistics?

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence. Learn to read."

Keep reading it, jerkoff.

"...Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again?." -- Carol Brouillet

Keep reading the part that says "I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone" until the meaning penetrates your 8-foot thick, steel-reinforced concrete skull.

So what were you saying about "repeating the same incompetent arguments," hypocrite?

The goat fucker brays, "...Challenging you to support your empty claim was not an argument of ignorance."

I didn't make an "empty claim," I presented evidence. Evidence that YOU rejected without offering a scintilla of evidence to support your argument.

Furthermore, it's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your claims. Either prove that Barrett modified the thread, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!

The goat fucker whines, "...You're really not equipped for this."

You're the one who violated EVERY RULE OF DEBATE AND FORMAL LOGIC, asshole. So don't condescend to me, scumbag.

Now either put up or shut up, goat fucker.

Where's your evidence to show that Barrett modified the thread?

But you can't substantiate an argument from ignorance, can you, scumbag?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

unsafe adj. 1. not safe; perilous

Got it, asshole? Unsafe is defined as "not safe"

Now read it again--you sub-literate clown:

"...Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again." -- Carol Brouillet

Thus, feels that she is UNSAFE in your presence.

Learn to read, goat fucker.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, has it never occurred to you that nobody is reading your repetitive flatulence?

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Carol did not say she did felt unsafe. I guess you missed those little marks around the word "safe". Did you ever stop to consider why those were there?

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal!

That's not answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Either prove that Barrett modified the thread, or STFU.

Where's your evidence, scumbag?

Otherwise, you're merely offering another logical fallacy (argument from ignorance) as "evidence."

So have you grasped the meaning of the word unsafe (ie, "not safe"), cretin?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 May, 2012 19:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go for it, goat fucker. Dig your heels in and continue to lie while the evidence stares you straight in your lying, ferret face.

unsafe = "not safe."

Got it, illiterate?

 
At 07 May, 2012 21:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if the demand that documents be autheticated is logically fallacious, then why do courtroom procedures indulge the practice as a matter of routine? Why is your argument "My document is authentic unless y9ou can prove it's not!" not sufficient in court?

Your belief that the language you cite means "unsafe" is irrational. You have obviously not considered the quotation marks.

What if you got greeting cards from your friends.

I've always had much 'respect' for you.

I'll 'never' forget you.

Your 'help' is much appreciated.

Your 'talent' is amazing.

Your 'musicianship' is impressive.

 
At 07 May, 2012 23:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're not very bright, are you, 'genius'?

 
At 08 May, 2012 06:18, Blogger Scarlet said...

So you're saying that the statement "Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again" was sarcasm?

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know what it was.

I do know that to characterize it as a charge of stalking and death threats is not just a lie, it is a malicious lie. Is "I'd rather not see you again" what a woman says to a stalker and would-be home-wrecker? GutterBall expects us to believe she's saying "You tried to break up my family, you've threatened my life, you're stalking and harassing me--and I'd rather not see you again."

Note also how the clause about 'safe' is predicated in "Because of your delusions". Take away the delusions, and there's no issue about 'safe'. Time has shown that there were no delusions. My perceptions about her friends were not delusional at all.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:15, Blogger Len said...

From the other thread:
Ian

You know what's a really underrated album? "Adventure" by Television. Everyone (rightly) commends "Marquee Moon" for being one of the all-time great albums, but "Adventure" is fantastic as well and deserves more recognition, IMHO.


Ian I have a vinyl bootleg of them while Richard Hell was in the band, it includes some demos they did with Brian Eno and some live tracks at CB’s. Though the audio quality is not very good I like better than either studio album, the highlight is “Blank Generation” with Verlaine and Lloyd’s guitar work. The funny thing is I bought it decades ago at Bleecker Bob’s days after reading that this line up never recorded! I imagine you can find these recordings on the Net.

 
At 08 May, 2012 07:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can just imagine how GutterBall handles a domestic problem: "You've burned down my garage, you give pot to my children, you broke my rototiller, you steal my whiskey, and you seduced my wife. If you keep up this behavior, I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

 
At 08 May, 2012 19:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...[GuitarBill] expects us to believe she's saying 'You tried to break up my family, you've threatened my life, you're stalking and harassing me--and I'd rather not see you again.'"

False. That's not what I said at all.

Are straw man arguments all you have, goat fucker?

The goat fucker whines, "...You tried to break up my family..."

You did, scumbag.

"...You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I." -- Carol Brouillet

The goat fucker whines, "...you're stalking and harassing me--and I'd rather not see you again."

Yep, you're a stalker and a sex predator.

"...Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again." -- Carol Brouillet

Would a home wrecker, predator and sex stalker, who constantly lies, make death threats to a harmless woman?

Probably.

 
At 08 May, 2012 20:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Give it up, ButtGale. You're not equipped for this.

 
At 08 May, 2012 23:25, Blogger barogers619 said...

"UtterFail, she did not say she feels unsafe in my presence. Learn to read"snug.bug

"I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone"-Carol

Speaking of fail!! Are you seriously trying to say that unsafe doesnt mean to NOT feel safe? You are completely deluded and in total denial. This is quite laughable to see you trying to weasel your way out of what Carol said and the meaning of unsafe.

 
At 08 May, 2012 23:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

b19, no I'm not "trying to say that unsafe doesnt mean to NOT feel safe". I'm saying that "I cannot ever feel 'safe'" does not mean "I feel unsafe".

The quotation marks on 'safe' render its power equivalent to 'love', 'respect', 'help', 'influence'. Nil.

Also, the fact that the issue is predicated on supposed "delusions" that turned out to be factually correct renders the entire thing moot.

 
At 09 May, 2012 05:47, Blogger Scarlet said...

Snug, if you can't see that those little quotation marks don't negate anything else in that statement, even IF they do mean she's using the term "safe" ironically (which I doubt, given the content of the rest of the statement), then those delusions she speaks of are a serious concern.

Plenty of people also use quotation marks to emphasize a word. It's an incorrect usage, but one that I would think probably applies here.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home