Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by Michael Stuart Kelly

  1. 22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    Oh? That's kind of a passive construction.  When will he be replaced, by your reckoning?  And why would he be replaced?


    Deep State. Wray is a moderate Deep Stater (to coin a term).

    I don't have a timeline, but going by pattern, if Wray keeps to "muh Russians" and does not get with President Trump's view of law and order applied equally to everyone, and foreign policy for that matter, I believe he will be replaced.

    I see President Trump's tweet as a warning.


  2. 8 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    Since the tut-tut pat on the head above, realism and objective epistemology is on its way to the ditch.


    That's not true.

    You refuse to accept what QAnon actually is.

    It is a form of spreading the freedom message that no censor on earth can throttle.

    Call it a cult if you wish and clutch your pearls about the destruction of rational epistemology (as if that were even possible), but that will not stop the message of freedom from spreading via Q. And it will misdirect the attention of people engaged at fighting the current attempt at tyranny by an elitist class.

    QAnon is one of the strong drivers of this freedom and resistance to tyranny message.

    The more you dismiss it, call it lack of reason, cult, and so on, the stronger it gets.

    There is a reason for that--a perfectly rational, understandable and even measurable reason--but I doubt you will ever want to look. You have a story in your mind and you keep trying to fit reality to that story when reality is not so accommodating.

    If you want to destroy Q, you first have to identify it correctly.

    So far, all you've done in all your posts is talk about a cartoon that you want Q to be.


  3. T,

    Please excuse me taking this discussion over to a different thread. Right now we are in a section of OL called blogs and I know for a fact that some readers refuse to read them. (Their choice, so whatever.)

    I post on William's blog at times, but when a discussion starts going deep, I want to expose it to a wider audience. The best way I have found is to continue it on a normal forum thread and link back to the blog thread it came from, which is what I am doing here. You will find a response from me here. I am pretty sure you will find it food for thought.


  4. 6 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

    I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary, but it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force.


    I agree.

    Sometimes reality is a bitch to swallow. But swallow it we must. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.

    And one reality is that a war is far more important to win than any single battle for solidifying a system of government. In our system, a crime must be committed before it can be punished. The people who voted for their local governments in the current trouble spots in America elected assholes who crapped all over the police. No wonder they are walking off the job or doing things half-assed. The only way to fix that is let the crimes be committed, make all due appropriate legal cases and paperwork, then go in and clean it up without mercy. Then make sure everybody knows what the rules are for there on out, and make sure they know bad things will happen to them if they try to infringe those rules to harm others.

    You and I, for as much as we feel for the innocent victims in these situations, are not the ones who commit the crimes. The criminals are.

    So feel bad, if you must. I certainly do when I see distress signals of the innocent. I think I have an oxytocin overload inside me. I can turn into mush on a dime. 🙂 

    But never guilty. Never feel guilty for something wrong you did not do. Accept the reality that in a situation like Seattle, you did nothing wrong.

    If you accept that frame, and you believe in law and order based on individual rights, you will opt for permanent solutions, not temporary appeasements and gestures that are easily undone just to stop the suffering of someone you did not attack, but someone else did.


    • Like 1
  5. Seattle is out of whack, but there is no real threat.

    LARP = Live Action Role Playing.

    This is done by rich kids who have no meaning in life except to glue themselves to role playing games 24/7.

    One day they wake up and see an opportunity to role play for real and CHANGE THE WORLD!

    Out they come and stake a claim.

    Then reality slaps them hard upside the head.

    Those who don't get carried off cry and go back to their parents' basements.

    And once they see how easily they sell each other out, they wallow in self-pity about how unfair life is.

    Then back to the role playing games.

    The fake news mainstream media likes LARP, though. They can gin it up and make it seem like real war. And, for a short time, that makes them look like they are doing real news.

    And where is reality?

    Well... If reality were a person, it would be looking on in wonder at all this foolishness right before it lowered the boom.



  6. On 5/18/2020 at 1:19 PM, william.scherk said:

    A fun read, if you like oddities, quirks and foibles ...

    The Church of QAnon: Will conspiracy theories form the basis of a new religious movement?
    May 18, 2020 7.12am  EDT

    I read this and the more I went along, the more I kept thinking it was so beside the point. Talk about irrelevance on steroids.

    But I ended up reading the whole thing.

    I took a look at the author, Marc-André Argentino. He's a crank funded by globalist establishment think tanks. He tries to come up with cutesy sounding terms like "infodemic" and so on. His main interest is how to find ways to shut down free speech, especially on the Internet. His main smokescreen, from what little I looked through search results, is fighting the QAnon dragon. He has even proposed that QAnon is a public health threat. He haunts the fringe of QAnon with regularity, so it's obvious he is a paid troll. See here (direct quote from his article):


    On Feb. 23, I logged onto Zoom to observe the first public service of what is essentially a QAnon church operating out of the Omega Kingdom Ministry (OKM). I’ve spent 12 weeks attending this two-hour Sunday morning service.

    Two hours every Sunday for twelve weeks? LOL...


    I bet he feels like a regular James Bond.


    The organization that funds him, the Global Network on Extremism and Technology is even more interested in shutting down free speech, in monitoring the Internet and so on through the guise of fighting terrorists--mostly Saudi Arabian and far-right terrorists. I mean, after all, terrorists only come from Saudi Arabia and the far-right, right? 🙂 I took a look at the peeps at that site. Impressive. But if you know what the term "public-private partnerships" means, and all of the peeps are involved in that activity, you will know the essence of this organization. In other words, the Global Network on Extremism and Technology is an elitist ruling class think tank focusing on top-down control of communications media, which means a propaganda firm.

    The article was posted at a site called "The Conversation," which has the slogan of "Academic rigor, journalistic flair." The lady in charge is Beth Daley (Editor and General Manager). I never heard of her, so I looked her up. She's essentially a manmade climate change missionary fighting the good fight at local levels.

    But back to my feeling of wasting my time as I read the article. How relevant is that thing to the real world? After all, Marc-André Argentino has been doing some rip-rory-righteous infiltration by watching a fringe QAnon group online for twelve weeks in a row on Sundays. Let's let this Sherlock tell you in his own words from the article:


    As of May, OKM moved from Zoom to YouTube to accommodate the growth in attendees. At last count, approximately 300 accounts participated in the recent services.

    While that’s not a lot of followers, we should be concerned about these latest developments.

    Three hundred whole accounts? And how many people, pray tell, watch the service from each account? Obviously one. Why one? Well, can you see the whole family or a group of friends sitting around a computer screen to watch a YouTube video every Sunday for two hours? That just doesn't happen.

    So, in essence, Mr. Argentino is so worried about three hundred QAnon people, he thinks a new religious movement will come out of it and threaten the world.

    Well, if this guy thinks the important part of QAnon is only made up of 300 fringe people, he's a crank. So I wonder what in the hell he is really being paid for.

    The answer is obvious.

    He is being paid to manufacture propaganda.


    • Like 1
  7. 13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    Bob was exhibiting signs of Alzheimer's along with his characteristic Aspie obliviousness.  I started to wonder toward the end of last year if he'd died, and I took to periodically checking his User Profile to see if he'd signed in.  He did sign in on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, and then again on February 6.



    I have great affection for Bob. Even at his most Aspie. (He could be trying, though. :) )

    I hope his participation on OL over the years has been a joy to him.

    He was scorned just about everywhere else he went on the Internet.

    I'm sorry I never met him in person.

    And I hope whatever he is going through right now is not awful. It can't be great, but I hope it's bearable and has some upsides.


  8. I have been reading Loserthink by Scott Adams. He deals with the very topic under discussion here and spells out the scam I have always sensed and tried to describe as best I could. Scott did a much better job.

    The gist is that in deciding on whether manmade CO2 causes climate change, we not only get information second hand--after all, very few people make the measurements themselves, therefore most people rely on and pass on what someone says, not what they themselves experienced--we only get to see successes, not failures. And that is very similar to a popular "narrowing down" stock scam. This leads to the blind certainty of the gloom-and-doomers.

    Here are Scott's words from the book (where he also describes the scam).


    In theory, a nonscientist should be able to follow the climate debate to its conclusion and judge whether the scientists or the skeptics have the best argument. But in reality, all one can do is chase the arguments back and forth until one of the players says something scientific that you don’t understand. Then, if you are like most normal adults, you default to believing whichever side you already thought was right. The topic of climate science is effectively impenetrable for nonscientists.

    Consider the skeptical argument about the alleged “seventeen-year pause” in warming from 1996 to 2014 that NASA satellites measured. Skeptics say the pause disproves human-driven climate change because CO2 was rising sharply in that time while temperatures were not. Climate scientists counter that criticism by saying you can’t draw any conclusions from looking at a “cherry-picked” period less than thirty years in duration because short-term natural variations can mask the CO2-caused warming that is happening on average over the long term. But climate scientists also tell us that our most recent thirty years are showing warming that is highly meaningful. How can both things be true? Thirty years of temperature data either tells you something useful or it doesn’t. I assume the real problem here is my personal ignorance, and not necessarily a problem with climate science. I assume climate scientists have a good response to the alleged temperature pause, but I wouldn’t understand it if I heard it. My point is that a concerned citizen is largely helpless in trying to understand how settled the science of climate change really is. But that doesn’t stop us from having firm opinions on the topic. Ask Seth MacFarlane.

    If you have no experience in the field of science, you might think the climate models created by scientists are “science” because scientists make them. But prediction models are not science. They are an intelligent combination of scientific thinking, math, human judgment, and incomplete data. That’s why there are lots of different climate models, all a bit different.

    If you have not studied the methods of magicians and scam artists, you might not recognize that climate forecast models fit a common scam model. The scam works by sending thousands of emails with, let’s say, three different stock predictions to random people while claiming your proprietary algorithm says those stocks will rise. If any one of the three stocks goes up, entirely by chance, the group that got that particular stock recommendation will think the algorithm works. Then the scammer sends another batch of three different stock predictions to subsets of the group that got the lucky guesses from the first round.

    By chance, a few people in the second group might receive stock recommendations that performed well for no predictable reason. Now they think the algorithm is two-for-two in success. By the third round of this scam, the few people who ended up with three amazing stock predictions, completely by chance, will send the scammers a large check to invest on their behalf. After all, what are the odds of three stock predictions in a row being so accurate? The scam works because the targets of the scam don’t see any of the predictions that were wrong, so they lack important context.

    Similar to the stock scam, climate scientists discard climate models that don’t fit with observations. The public doesn’t hear about the models that are discarded. If you start with hundreds of different predictions, and you discard the ones that miss their initial predictions, you are nearly guaranteed to end up with some models that seem to predict the future, but only by chance.

    Did you know that?

    If all you know is how many times someone hit a target, it is loserthink to judge how accurate they are. You also need to know how many times they missed.

    If you were already aware that climate models are not science, and that they fit the pattern of well-known scams (sometimes called marketing), and that it is fairly normal for the consensus of scientists to be dead wrong, you probably have a healthy skepticism about climate predictions of doom.

    One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved. You end up with this:

    Well, yes, our predictions were completely wrong, but now we know why they were wrong. If you give us a million dollars to fix it, our predictions will be accurate from this point on. Don’t ask me what we fixed or how we did it because you wouldn’t understand. It’s complicated.

    Whenever you have a lot of money in play, combined with the ability to hide misbehavior behind complexity, you should expect widespread fraud to happen. 

    This is why I believe Brad and William run from answering Jonathan's questions. They are in the sweet spot of the scam targets and that, allied to the social proof and peer pressure of those they read and hang out with who agree with them, makes them certain. They don't need to answer simple questions about climate science and the scientific method and couldn't if they tried--unless they said we need to learn a lot more before we can be certain of any large-scale predictions. And that includes whether man-produced CO2 causes major climate change.

    Granted, the climate change computer models always fail eventually, at least they have up to now, so that might make it seem like the stocks scam isn't relevant. But short term, scientists stake their reputations on these models and everyone on the manmade climate change side touts how correct they are. And they never say, "Oops," when their climate models blow up. So the public perception is that these models are successful. Sometimes they need to be "refined," but this is tweaking success, not fixing failure.

    That's the perception. The reality is pure failure.


    • Like 1
  9. 21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Personally, I think such an invisible hand would be wise to "mark" the inappropriate material rather than delete it. Perhaps a spoiler ...


    There are contexts and there are contexts.

    Double-dog daring me on my own forum, like Brad did, comes with a cost. You (William) don't have to like me deleting his shit, but that's the way it is in that context. And if the person keeps up too much of that crap, like the crazy lady did sometime back, I ban them and block them from even reading the forum without using a proxy.

    As to context, I personally like to drink lots water every day. But if I drink 2 gallons of it in a short time, I die. Does that mean drinking lots of water is bad for me? Or only in the context of within a short time?

    See how that works?

    Letting texts be is great for almost all contexts. But in a few contexts with hardheads wearing crashproof helmets, it's toxic. 

    I often wonder why pro-establishment folks have difficulty understanding context when power is involved. They want to be the ones to tell everyone what to do and make exceptions for themselves--more often than not when they don't own the places they want to do that at.

    My policy, which I have stated over and over for years, is that people on OL who are regulars, especially those who have been so for some time, which includes you, get lots of flexibility. Newcomers who show up and want to run this site and, with a chip on their shoulders, call the owner bad things, get very little.

    Look what happened with this guy when I allowed him too much flexibility. He had no idea where he was at, even when warned. He must have thought OL was a safe space or something...


    If Brad doesn't like the way he's being treated here, tough shit. I don't like the way he treated others and me on this forum. Let him bitch about me to his peeps. There are plenty of places on the Internet to do that. But here on OL, if he wants to be treated better, he needs to act better. And it starts by ditching the constant condescension. (Disagreement is fine.)

    As to posts I don't let through, he better make a copy of them because I am not saving them. (There has only been one so far.)

    I'm curious to see how this plays out over time.

    People know I rarely keep restrictions permanent. Frankly, I don't want to use restrictions at all, but it's real hard to get some people to pay attention. They're just too damn hardheaded. So I have to find a way to get their attention. Taking away their power always gets their attention.

    If Brad learns how this community works and starts posting accordingly, great. And like I said, disagreements are fine if that's what he wants to do. If he never posts again, also great. It's his choice, not mine. Either way is good for OL.

    He will not change how this community works, though. That would be bad for OL. He doesn't rule anything here.


  10. 31 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    By virtue of using the "Laugh" icon to indicate derision, Jon manages to make Brad look on the "Leaderboard" as if he has a high approval rating.


    Ditto for William.


    In fact, on the Leaderboard, you can choose by year, by week, all time, by day, etc. William is in the top 4 in all of them.

    He should thank Jon for making him look good.


    Thanks of thinking through the gamification stuff. I could have (and probably should have) thought this stuff through. I'm mostly bored by it, though. I've noticed, I'm not very participatory by nature. So the badges of participation and things like that don't interest me from the way they were designed. I prefer them for banter or other "up" emotions.

    Even traffic only interests me (for now) from a particular viewpoint that is not normal. I try to keep it within a margin. I especially do not want a huge amount of traffic right now. Why? Simply because more bandwidth costs more money. Later, when I can move the forum to a different structure, hire coding technicians and so on, I will change this standard and open up with some tricks and tools I have learned over the years. Then the traffic should skyrocket.


  11. On 2/13/2020 at 6:34 AM, Jonathan said:

    That's false. MSK answered your questions.


    When he asked, I said he probably wouldn't get it.

    (This issue was why President Trump sometimes does things that look inconsistent on the surface--he mentioned two cases if I recall correctly.)

    After I answered him, then made a few attempts at explaining it in simple terms, guess what?

    He didn't get it.

    And he laughed (and still laughs) at people who do get it.

    He wanted a different outcome.

    Sharing information does not seem to be at the root of interacting with him.

    It may start that way, but it always goes south into a pissing contest.



  12. 34 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    A waste of money.


    You can say that again.

    People who would fund that are the kind who might pay, say, 14 million dollars for a report that said Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to pee on a bed the Obamas slept in.

    These people love to waste their money.

    btw - Fewer than 20 reads per post? Where did you get that stat? Educated guess? I don't know how to get views per post. I don't even get views per thread, although I might be able to find out where to turn that on in the backoffice. (For the record, your guess sounds good to me, maybe even a little high since this thread is in William's blog and, from a general impression I have garnered over time, blog threads on OL don't seem to get the same luv from the search engines that normal threads do.)

    Anyway, it's easy to see number of points per poster over time, although I'm not sure what these points are (maybe likes).

    Here is the Leaderboard stats for top points during the month from January 14 to February 14.


    Guess who's at top?

    Busy busy busy...



  13. 1 hour ago, tmj said:

    People don't waste time lying about about the fate of the planet and how humanity can atone for it, they usually get something for it.


    It does make one wonder, doesn't it?

    Ellen suggested the incentive might be romance (bimbo in distress kind of thing in this case :) ), I have posited it is religion and/or vanity, others bounce back and forth between stupidity and dishonesty, now you bring up money (by insinuation).

    We don't know for sure until we know, but money sounds awfully good for this much effort out of this guy...

    Who knows? Maybe it's all of the above.

    There is one thing I am sure it is not. That is passion for discussing the scientific method applied to climate, or to anything for that matter.