william.scherk

Members
  • Content count

    6,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

william.scherk last won the day on August 13

william.scherk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

1 Follower

About william.scherk

  • Rank
    William Scott Scherk
  • Birthday 01/24/1958

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://members.shaw.ca/wsscherk/SOLOrejects/Linzoids.htm
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    wsscberk
  • Skype
    wsscherk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests
    Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    William Scott Scherk
  • Description
    Poet and gadfly, WSS has been:- HR manager of a year-round silviculture company in the great white north- singer. songwriter, frontman- painter- sculptor- reporter- cook- janitor- editor- filmmaker- actor- amateur psychologist- web mavenMay he be all these things
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

21,324 profile views
  1. william.scherk

    Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

    Assumed and reported by whom? You, brother Michael. There could be more to this frame of a story: "They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.'" W5?
  2. william.scherk

    Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

    Not doubts per se, but questions. In this case, with context of various Fake News outlets seeking access post-verdict to jury members in the first Paul Manafort trial in Virginia, with the reaction to the "media" submission by the judge, I need the connecting of the dots, a couple of labels and maybe some thumbtacks and string: -- who is the Deep State agent/s in the cast of characters in and surrounding the trial? -- what part or parts has an otherwise unidentified Deep State strategy played in the trial? -- what has the presumed agent done -- from a list of 'actions' taken/described/inferred by the judge/Kevin Daley/MSK? -- which assumed/reported action should be assigned to Deep State individuals, assumed operatives, named and unnamed actors? The story from the Daily Caller's deep embed Kevin Daley had a few proffered facts but no real speculation, so I don't really get the story being told above. They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that. This is the desperation of a dying elitist power group in collusion with a dying fake news legacy media. My questions would be: the "It" in They're Not Even Hiding It Anymore is what? "Spooks" are likely the they in "They're," and so Spooks are 'not even hiding it anymore,' even though they are 'supposed to hide stuff like that.' What is "it," what is "stuff like that," and can you give an example from another trial of a well-hidden-by-spooks It/Stuff Like That? The dying elitist power group is .... Deep State It-Hiding Spooks? "Deep State operating personnel" are former honchos from the intelligence community, right? As soon as Trump is finished being President, the next administration may have to purge hundreds and hundreds of Trump Deep Staters in turn. They may end up being in a set of soi-disant Dissidents, but so what? If they were Deeped, dipped in deep secrets --they will need harsh scrutiny if not uprooting when a new mandate of heaven is given to a Leader. All IC or Top Secret 'insiders' from the Trump Era, named, shamed, rooted out and de-cleared -- so they cannot take advantage of the Nation's Secrets. Starting with Jared Kuchner .... Corrrruption, as my friend Parm would say. As of yet, the President of the United States has not decided to strip the security clearance of former National Security Advisor General Flynn, although ... he lied to federal agents about his meetings with agents of the Other Big Deep State. I figure if the Deep State Actor is almost criminal, or at least guilty of civil harms, then put him-them on trial or sue them-him in the name of the Leader. It worked, sort of, in Turkey. The security of the Leader of the Nation must be paramount, right? Jared will be miffed, Ivanka not so much. The two almost got everything they need out of China.
  3. william.scherk

    How to disagree without being disagreeable

    Advice for beginners ... I often feel like a beginner ...
  4. william.scherk

    Donald Trump

    Now that the Hardy Boys have partially solved The Mystery of Hillary's Felonies, we can return to taking heed of the leading communicator in America. Trump tweets. -- how often does a sitting president comment on a criminal trial as a jury deliberates its verdicts? Yesterday the President suggested that Paul Manafort was getting the shaft by the prosecution. Luckily, jurors were instructed not to discuss, watch listen to, or read any materials on the case besides their own notes and memories, according to various sources. But, see the spin BS sick behaviour from MSNBC, CNN and CrookedMedia.
  5. william.scherk

    Argument Clinic #1 'The danger in asking for specifics"

    Tucked in raw for now, will get to my elaborate and yet maudlin answer this weekend if on sober second thought it seems necessary. Locked till then. This message will self destruct. First thought for the clinic staff: triage, expose wounds. Framework: The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabriel Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials) and it's pure shit awful awful. Either pure invention or 'chinese whispers'? If I were President, and this kind of shit got near my cognitions, I hope I would react coldly, coolly, rationally, with a hope to later exact cold platters of vengeance in proportion. If this happened in Turkey, the whole magazine could be shuttered and its editor detained on Insulting The Honour Of The Head of State charges. Furious Trump told advisers that he wants Jeff Sessions to arrest Omarosa over her book: report -- the only semi-possible tale out of Omarosa's dog mouth that I take somewhat on offer is that the Trump Campaign offered her a 'be nice' job going forward. [WSS -- there is more to put in here for the full record. Durr ] William, Square that with this: [WSS insert Tweet please] Sounds like Trump is really, really, really, furious, huh? Choo chooooo!... Michael William, Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication? Because, we all know that Vanity Fair knows anything and everything about Trump insiders, right? Hell, I mean, if Vanity Fair says something about Trump, it must be true, right? Michael The writer of the story was Gabriel Sherman. He is the author of a 2014 biography of Roger Ailes, "The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News – and Divided a Country." "Vanity Fair" knows nothing. "We all know" is an arbitrary assertion. The writer is responsible for his claims ... lefite publication or not. If I redacted the header to this quote ... ... then I would be assigning the responsibility for the quote to the collective forum itself. "Nothing you read on Objectivist Living can be trusted." The Gabriel Sherman story originally appeared at Vanity Fair. "It must be true, right?" is a pointless question. He has also appeared twice on CSPAN, and even on NewsMax: [NewsMax video and cut-off final Vanity Fair glossy magazine favourite cover. ] As if that's an answer. Even to the casual reader, that sounds like something is missing. It sounds like a typical non-answer answer of politicians, so to speak. Maybe with a subtext: a master of the obvious put-down attempt as if I didn't know that an author wrote the article or something. Setting aside personal considerations, let's look into this a bit deeper. The way William answered (granted, in response to the way I worded by question), it seems like Vanity Fair has a worse reputation than Raw Story. Does it? I'll deal with that at the end of the post. On another point, William's non-answer answer also implies Gabriel Sherman disagrees with the editorial slant of Vanity Fair and is a book author loner instead--that he only sporadically writes articles as a freelancer. Does he? Hmmmm... Let's provide the missing part and see. Here's the first paragraph from the Raw Story story in the above link (my bold): Woah theah, hoss... Gabriel Sherman belongs to Vanity Fair? Being the first paragraph and all, it's kinda hard to miss this information. And us? What are we still missing? Well, let's see what Vanity Fair says about Gabriel Sherman. Gabriel Sherman From that link: In other words, Gabriel Sherman works at Vanity Fair. As an author. As an author on salary. I normally don't play gotcha games, but this one was just crying out to be played. So... (taking a deep breath...) GOTCHA!!! And over what? Let's go back to my first point. The fact is Raw Story is a much worse leftie rag than Vanity Fair is, that is, as far as leftie rags go. Organizations that rate these things give Raw Story far worse marks than Vanity Fair for accuracy in reporting. (For those interested, look this up at Media Bias Fact Check and other places online.) So saying something is from Vanity Fair gives it more authority than saying it is from Raw Story, not less. William is normally better at propaganda than this. I wonder what happened? Michael Horizontal Line. <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote="" data-ipsquote-contentapp="blog" data-ipsquote-contentclass="blog_Entry" data-ipsquote-contentcommentid="1718" data-ipsquote-contentid="659" data-ipsquote-contenttype="blogs" data-ipsquote-timestamp="1534608097" data-ipsquote-userid="139" data-ipsquote-username="Quoting MSK from the blog blockquote"> <div class="ipsQuote_citation"> 13 minutes ago, Quoting MSK from the blog blockquote said: </div> <div class="ipsQuote_contents ipsClearfix"> <p> Let&#39;s provide the missing part and see. Here&#39;s the first paragraph from the <em>Raw Story</em> story in the above link (my bold): </p> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote=""> <div class="ipsQuote_citation ipsQuote_open"> Quote </div> <div class="ipsQuote_contents ipsClearfix"> <p> A new report <span style="font-size:16px;"><strong>from Vanity Fair&rsquo;s Gabriel Sherman </strong></span>claims that President Donald Trump now wants to see estranged aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman arrested over her recently published book. </p> </div> </blockquote> <p> Woah theah, hoss... </p> <p> Gabriel Sherman belongs to <em>Vanity Fair</em>?&nbsp;Being the first paragraph and all, it&#39;s kinda hard to miss this information. </p> </div> </blockquote> <p> In other words, I deliberately-and/or-fiendishly &#39;left out&#39; a VANITY FAIR tag that anyone clicking through to the linked STORY would read in the FIRST LINE of the FIRST PARAGRAPH.&nbsp; If that VANITY FAIR suspiciously-missing tag was important for Dear Reader, it was &quot;kinda hard to miss this information.&quot; </p> <p> I feel completely gaccia-ed, if not gutted like a fish.&nbsp; To sling a metaphor. MOUNTAIN. Molehill. OPINION. Dudgeon. UNDERSTANDING. Nil. </p>
  6. william.scherk

    The Left's New Darling Dingbat

    I thought we were starting with the lawyers? My podges from Memeorandum.com probably raise only a sigh most times, even when I style it all as Grand Hoopla. It bears mentioning that Memeorandum is like Drudge, pretty text-based. Whereas Drudge gets more links on a page, by far, Memeorandum adds in contextual-material that helps you sort through the stories you may read or at least take note of. Where there is a byline, it is noted. When which story was first published is usually indicated by the ranks of the lists. Where the story appeared is always indicated. So you can blow through the lists looking for folks you appreciate, or who have provided you with interesting takes, reams of detail, whatever -- maybe you pick the best, tightest, weirdest, most histrionic or otherwise awful from a 'tribe' opposite to your way of thinking. So, a Liberal liberal would read over to, say, Chuck Ross or Sara Carter for the straight hard journalism (a titch of Daily Caller style), and to say Limbaugh for a longer argument, but could also be on the lookout for 'crazy' authors to typify Them, if you can imagine a Liberal liberal doing that. A OL majority tribe member might choose from writers in which he or she has put trust, from all sides of tribal fences. Anyhow, boring set up out of the way, sometimes it becomes apparent that a story will get more than a day of Hoopla, if not Grand, if not Grand Supreme. And it may be led by fine writer minds from any particular 'wing' or arm of submedia... Memeorandum, even if overwhelmingly an aggregator of false, manipulative, biased and misleading 'news' from the mainstream, will still show items of interest to smaller/unrepresented tribes here and there. This snapshot was taken at 3:45 pm Eastern. The topic has become a Hollywood Squares TV NewsPinball screeching chyron as well. It's cool when the amplification comes from the 'other guy.' That's life, people. -- durr, I forgot to point to writer George Prayias, but then again, I can't remember anything distinct about his stories. Jonathan has already featured a link to that story.
  7. william.scherk

    Fake Social Media

    I had a momentous week on [Fake] Social Media. (Background Zzzzz: A lady who gained a BA in broadcast journalism from a nice school, formerly working with Project Veritas and later the "Rebel Media" outfit, was doing her sort of reporting on two other ladies who are running for office. The remarkable-to-some aspect of their candidacies is not that they are women, ho hum, but that they are Muslim. So, the US Congress may have a Muslim woman or two elected this fall -- for the first time. Ms Loomer has been attending events for the two ladies, and had a bit of a contretemps at one such event. Shortly thereafter she posted a funny kind of tweet: the two ladies were not mere "Muslim" -- and not merely "Islamic" (Styxhexenhammer666's appelation) -- they were "jihadi candidates." The power of [Fake Social] Twitter is awesome, within its limits. My response to Laura Loomer blew up into the most-read tweet I have ever made in my long years on the [Fake] platform ...)
  8. william.scherk

    Fake News

    Blah blah blah William, [Added by WSS: blah blah blah] Blah blah blah
  9. william.scherk

    Fake News

    The writer of the story was Gabriel Sherman. He is the author of a 2014 biography of Roger Ailes, "The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News – and Divided a Country." "Vanity Fair" knows nothing. "We all know" is an arbitrary assertion. The writer is responsible for his claims ... lefite publication or not. If I redacted the header to this quote ... ... then I would be assigning the responsibility for the quote to the collective forum itself. "Nothing you read on Objectivist Living can be trusted." The Gabriel Sherman story originally appeared at Vanity Fair. "It must be true, right?" is a pointless question. He has also appeared twice on CSPAN, and even on NewsMax: -- if one believes or claims that Sherman is an untrustworthy narrator, leans far too heavily on 'sources,' is afflicted by a bone-deep bias that distorts all his reporting, one can make a detailed argument, and use examples of Sherman 'facts' that turned out to be horseshit. Vanity Fair ... is also a print magazine. This is my favourite cover:
  10. william.scherk

    Rigging the 2016 Presidential Election

    For fans of Jimmy Dore, on the subject of vote suppression, voter system vulnerabilities, and electronic 'hacking' ...
  11. william.scherk

    Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

    Here's a reasonably-fresh topical video from the folks at ARI: Bayer and Ghate Chat on Rand’s View of Conspiracy Theories (New Ideal)
  12. william.scherk

    Sessions, leaks, security, Manafort and 'false news.'

    Here's some fun speculation from Scott Adams, on the Manafort trial:
  13. william.scherk

    Trump humor

    This mordant tweet about The Dog Tapes does not approach the heights of Dennis Edwall's OT, but I thought it might twang the odd funnybone. Digression:
  14. william.scherk

    Fake News

    The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabriel Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials) and it's pure shit awful awful. Either pure invention or 'chinese whispers'? If I were President, and this kind of shit got near my cognitions, I hope I would react coldly, coolly, rationally, with a hope to later exact cold platters of vengeance in proportion. If this happened in Turkey, the whole magazine could be shuttered and its editor detained on Insulting The Honour Of The Head of State charges. Furious Trump told advisers that he wants Jeff Sessions to arrest Omarosa over her book: report -- the only semi-possible tale out of Omarosa's dog mouth that I take somewhat on offer is that the Trump Campaign offered her a 'be nice' job going forward. On the other hand, the recording of Lara Trump unveiled by Dog Begging Wacky today are a bit of confirmation of the claim already made -- Dog Mouth would have been effectively Muzzled. I predict six more days of Dog 'reveals' before she slips out of the ring of Grand Hoopla. There is always some bit of zany fail-sourced bullshit ready to be peddled ...
  15. More on these not-so-secret allegedly morally-squalid bad doings ... wrapped up in: This review of House of Trump, House of Putin is harsh, harsh, almost bitter in tone as regards bad doings. What kind of propaganda vehicle does this review suggest of the book's authors, hmmm?