Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

I’ll try and be more civil in future, just leave my mother out of it...

No, Jules.

Not more civil.

I want you to leave me the fuck alone. And I am NOT going to leave your whore mother alone if you fail to leave me alone.

You can't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

No, Jules.

Not more civil.

I want you to leave me the fuck alone. And I am NOT going to leave your whore mother alone if you fail to leave me alone.

You can't do it.

Was I talking to you? Fuck off.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules Troy said:

Was I talking to you? Fuck off.

No, shit-for-brains, you were talking to the other people here who joke about your whore mother. God you are so fucking stupid. Are you ready yet to try again, you fucking retard? Leave me alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

No, shit-for-brains, you were talking to the other people here who joke about your whore mother. God you are so fucking stupid. Are you ready yet to try again, you fucking retard? Leave me alone.

The only person to call my mother a whore was you.  Now fuck off.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, caroljane said:

Socially greedy people like you, Jon, I can't say fascinate me, but certainly perplex me.

"Socially greedy"? WTF?

 

15 hours ago, caroljane said:

With every weapon you have in gratuitous insult, obscene and beyond name-calling to the point of psychotic delusion, you have wasted oceans of hate over a few harmless individuals here with the goal of getting us to stop posting on the site, because you disagree with our ideas and can't tolerate any back talk from from non-Trump worshippers.

The above is what is called psychological projection.

 

15 hours ago, caroljane said:

But as mentioned, you are greedy. What is the quote, "It is  not enough to succeed, everyone else must fail"? Dissent must be silenced and banished.

MSK has expressed his gratitude and loyalty to you, and his devotion to his Kat is legendary, so I truly admire him for not acquiescing to your urgings that he get rid of the people who have criticized you.

Must be tough not being able to throw people off the site on your own authority, eh?

???

Okay, so I must have missed something. Jon has been asking MSK to silence and ban people? He has demanded that other be thrown off the site? All that I have seen is his suggesting that you and others who can't get along with him agree to not address each other, an offer which you all refuse to accept.

Where are the posts where he urged to demanded that others be silenced/banned/thrown off?

J

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 11:12 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I'm not surprised that William tried backstage pressure.  Again, he would.

Ellen,

It gets worse.

Earlier today I made a post over on the Trump thread (see here). I mentioned that I made a tweet at the beginning of December about Trump. I was sleepy at the time and running on autopilot, so I practically did an autopost. Just today I noticed that it got over 400 likes and 40 retweets. I honestly didn't notice before today that this was going on. I also mentioned this was not from my own audience, but due to me getting in front of someone else's audience.

I rarely, rarely tweet, but I do use twitter as a kind of news aggregator or news feed. So I just checked it to see if there was any news about Michael Flynn. Guess what else I saw?

William is now over there liking the tweets of strangers (to me and him) who had disagreed with my tweet from the beginning of December. (Twitter highlighted this to me for some reason.)

Seriously, you can't make this up. :) 

I swear, I'm outlining a fiction book right now and orchestrating the characters. I hadn't thought to put a petite bourgeoisie village gossip in. If I do, I'll model the character on William.

:) 

I mean, sometimes the universe insists on sending these archetypes your way, so might was well use them...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger Stone has retracted some 'fake news' published on the Infowars platform ...

Quote

[...] In the settlement, Stone apologized and retracted his comments about Guo.

"All of these statements are not true," Stone said, adding that he "failed to do proper research before making those statements."

Instead of paying $100 million in damages, Stone is required to post the apology and retraction on his social media accounts, as well as his personal website.

His statement will be published in advertisements placed in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. He will also send his statement to Infowars, which, along with its founder Alex Jones, has faced several defamation lawsuits, including one brought by families of Sandy Hook victims.

Guo said he will drop the lawsuit after Stone's apology statement is published.

Stone, a longtime confidant of Trump who briefly served on his 2016 campaign, is a focus of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation over his potential backchannels to WikiLeaks.

He has denied wrongdoing regarding WikiLeaks' releases during the 2016 campaign.

Spoiler

 

DuteQSdX4AA80cg.jpg

DuteQSgXcAAp-cK.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yawn...

TGP Exclusive… Roger Stone: The Continuing Lies of WSJ Reporter Shelby Holliday

This is a guest post on The Gateway Pundit by Roger Stone.

From the post (it's short so I'll post the whole thing):

Quote

Yesterday I settled a lawsuit regarding a a story I reported for InfoWars regarding a Chinese businessman , Miles Kwok who is fighting extradition to China where he faces charges of financial crimes.

The Wall Street Journal was the first “news organization”to ask for comment.Here is the statement I gave them :
“As I indicated in my settlement agreement I made the terrible mistake of relying on the representations of Sam Nunberg in my reporting on Mr.Kwok. It’s almost as irresponsible as relying on the representations of Randy Credico ( something the Wall Street Journal has done consistently in their fraudulent coverage of me in the Russian  Collusion investigation ) . I am solely responsible for fulfilling the terms of the settlement “
Yet Shelby Holliday , the single most dishonest and duplicitous reporter working in media today reported it as “Stone admitted his reporting for InfoWars was irresponsible.”  The Associated Press picked that up as “ Stone said his reporting was irresponsible “ -clearly not at all what I said.
 
Unlike some journalists when I make an error I correct it. CBS reported my indictment would happen four Tuesday’s ago. Newsweek reported that I had reached a plea agreement with Mueller. I am still  waiting for a retraction on both.
 
I retracted one story based on erroneous sourcing out of the hundreds I’ve reported in the two years I’ve been a correspondent for InfoWars. Can the Wall Street Journal say the same.
 
I correctly testified under oath to the House intelligence committee that New York radio talk show host Randy Credico was the source who first told me of the significance and the October release date of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton. Shelby Holliday repeatedly reported Mr. Credico ‘s denial of this but failed to report when I released over 80 pages of text messages that prove that what I said was true.
 
How ironic that the Wall Street Journal would launch this attack on me on the very day I released the results of my polygraph test  that prove my denial that I collaborated with Wikileaks and therefore my House Intelligence Committee Testimony is true.

Fake news continues to be fake news...

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

It gets worse.

Earlier today I made a post over on the Trump thread (see here). I mentioned that I made a tweet at the beginning of December about Trump. I was sleepy at the time and running on autopilot, so I practically did an autopost. Just today I noticed that it got over 400 likes and 40 retweets. I honestly didn't notice before today that this was going on. I also mentioned this was not from my own audience, but due to me getting in front of someone else's audience.

I rarely, rarely tweet, but I do use twitter as a kind of news aggregator or news feed. So I just checked it to see if there was any news about Michael Flynn. Guess what else I saw?

William is now over there liking the tweets of strangers (to me and him) who had disagreed with my tweet from the beginning of December. (Twitter highlighted this to me for some reason.)

Seriously, you can't make this up. :) 

I swear, I'm outlining a fiction book right now and orchestrating the characters. I hadn't thought to put a petite bourgeoisie village gossip in. If I do, I'll model the character on William.

:) 

I mean, sometimes the universe insists on sending these archetypes your way, so might was well use them...

:) 

Michael

Hey, I'm jealous!

Unlike  William, I now live in a village, aspire to the bougeoisie it's never too late to try and social-climb) ), gossip with the guys at Tim Horton's with the best of them. Also, despite the flattering imaginings of some, am fairly petite.

Yet William gets to be an archetype!

And he never built a type in his life, I bet. 

Affrontedly,

C. Lloyd Roark

Archetext

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I can make you his petite bourgeoisie husband.

Would that work?

:) 

Michael

Well, I would consider that. I have always wanted to be taller.

I'll have my people call your people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

No, Jules.

Not more civil.

I want you to leave me the fuck alone. And I am NOT going to leave your whore mother alone if you fail to leave me alone.

You can't do it.

Kindergarten extortion in action.

Watch out for your lunch money, Jules. He thinks you'll pay him to stop being  obscenely slanderous, by not commenting on his primitive ill=-conceived notions of political reality.

What other inducement does he have for suppressing your free speech? Hmmm... Enquiring minds want to know...

But they don't want to know much.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Kindergarten extortion in action.

Watch out for your lunch money, Jules. He thinks you'll pay him to stop being  obscenely slanderous, by not commenting on his primitive ill=-conceived notions of political reality.

What other inducement does he have for suppressing your free speech? Hmmm... Enquiring minds want to know...

But they don't want to know much.

That right there is the the essence of the rotten soul of a leftist.

They relate the demand to be left alone to extortion.

Sick, sick, sick people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offence highlighted ...

34 minutes ago, caroljane said:
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I rarely, rarely tweet, but I do use twitter as a kind of news aggregator or news feed. So I just checked it to see if there was any news about Michael Flynn. Guess what else I saw?

William is now over there liking the tweets of strangers (to me and him) who had disagreed with my tweet from the beginning of December. (Twitter highlighted this to me for some reason.)

Hey, I'm jealous!

Twitter is not for everyone.  Some folks wisely refrain from commenting themselves, and use Michael's strategy of Twitter as aggregator of useful-to-them accounts.  Sometimes Twitter seems a mad festival of castigation and groupthink and outrage. 

Here are the three response tweets ... of dissent to the Michael tweet that caught wind off Cernovich.  I don't think I have ever got 400 likes, so I give the guy his due. "Liking the tweets of strangers" and all that.

catchAwind.png

"I've always depended on the "likes" of strangers ..."

Please donate to the Roger Stone Defense club ... 'this is an exact replica of the stone that David used to take down Goliath."

Spoiler

I meant to embed a link to the defense pay-in site, but my McAfee web advisor says the site is potentially dangerous ... proceed with caution.

stoneExactReplicaStone.jpg

 

The funny thing is -- neither of the Stone stones seems to be 'replicas' of each other.

"The exact historical replica" is a cute kind of in-joke.  Not quite up there with "marxist pedo" but hey.

Edited by william.scherk
Added more skeptical marxism hate-skepticism; stoner stones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

That right there is the the essence of the rotten soul of a leftist.

They relate the demand to be left alone to extortion.

Sick, sick, sick people.

Er, your demand was, "I will continue to attack your mother if you don't do what I want (ie, stop contradicting me)."

If you want to be left alone, you go where other people aren't. I have always found that strategy to work well.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

"Liking the tweets of strangers" and all that.

William,

In other words, you're saying you know those people whose tweets you liked? Are they some kind of fan club or something?

:evil: 

Or are they strangers?

And if they are strangers, and I said they are strangers, and further said you liked the tweets of strangers (who posted in response to me to disagree with me), what is the issue?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, caroljane said:

Er, your demand was, "I will continue to attack your mother if you don't do what I want (ie, stop contradicting me)."

If you want to be left alone, you go where other people aren't. I have always found that strategy to work well.

You can twist anything in that disturbed bag of shit head of yours, can’t you.

You are disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

In other words, you're saying you know those people whose tweets you liked? Are they some kind of fan club or something? :evil: 

Or are they strangers?

And if they are strangers, and I said they are strangers, and further said you liked the tweets of strangers (who posted in response to me to disagree with me), what is the issue?

Michael

The issue is he loves being a sniping little cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

It gets worse.

Earlier today I made a post over on the Trump thread (see here). I mentioned that I made a tweet at the beginning of December about Trump. I was sleepy at the time and running on autopilot, so I practically did an autopost. Just today I noticed that it got over 400 likes and 40 retweets. I honestly didn't notice before today that this was going on. I also mentioned this was not from my own audience, but due to me getting in front of someone else's audience.

I rarely, rarely tweet, but I do use twitter as a kind of news aggregator or news feed. So I just checked it to see if there was any news about Michael Flynn. Guess what else I saw?

William is now over there liking the tweets of strangers (to me and him) who had disagreed with my tweet from the beginning of December. (Twitter highlighted this to me for some reason.)

Seriously, you can't make this up. :) 

I swear, I'm outlining a fiction book right now and orchestrating the characters. I hadn't thought to put a petite bourgeoisie village gossip in. If I do, I'll model the character on William.

:) 

I mean, sometimes the universe insists on sending these archetypes your way, so might was well use them...

:) 

Michael

"...a petite bourgeoisie village gossip" and busybusybody.  William is industrious.

I find some of the compilations William posts usefully informative, though typically with different import than I think he sees in the material.

I never have felt that I really understood what the attraction of posting on O'vish sites is for William.  (As folks who have been around awhile probably recall,  he started posting more than thirteen years ago on the old SoloHQ, and he posted on SoloP.  Maybe he posted on other sites which I didn't read.)

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You can twist anything in that disturbed bag of shit head of yours, can’t you.

You are disgusting.

Back at ya, bro!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

"...a petite bourgeoisie village gossip" and busybusybody.  William is industrious.

I find some of the compilations William posts usefully informative, though typically with different import than I think he sees in the material.

I never have felt that I really understood what the attraction of posting on O'vish sites is for William.  (As folks who have been around awhile probably recall,  he started posting more than thirteen years ago on the old SoloHQ, and he posted on SoloP.  Maybe he posted on other sites which I didn't read.)

Ellen

See post above yours, Ellen.

Thats the attraction for Billyboylover.

Unlike this place, he was universally condemned at those places, so no “new eyes” would be confused what was going on who checked in and found him there, unlike here. I honestly think there are few sincere Rand enthusiasts to haters here precisely because people look in and it just doesn’t like a pro-Rand site.

Why would a newb post here, where they will obviously be instantly mocked by the Industrious Cunt?

They wouldn’t.

They move on, they keep looking for a place that is safe and friendly to discuss the ideas they wish to explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

See post above yours, Ellen.

Thats the attraction for Billyboylover.

Jon, your explanation wouldn't explain why specifically Objectivish sites.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I never have felt that I really understood what the attraction of posting on O'vish sites is for William.

We could always ask him, I suppose. Mind-reading and character-profiles can also work, if you are into that kind of thing. 

My first internet posting with Ayn Rand and Objectivism as a topic was in reaction to "Ayn Rand Cult."  I asked "Is Objectivism a cult" and I answered, "no," and then explored a few 'culty' behaviours of adherents, and pointed out my surprise/confusion that there was a kind of separation of Objectivist discourse from scientific research. I think I mentioned "emotion" as one of those areas where a doctrinal issue trumped ongoing learning.

That first Rand-ish post was I think in one of the old Newsgroups that had migrated from Usenet to Dejanews (or the old Yahoo  groups). In the dim recesses of my mind, I think there was an overlap of psychology in that group, as I recall I quoted Monica Pignotti. I think this would have been around 2005, 2006.

In this 2008 OL comment I ragged on Valliant, using 'cult' demonology as a frame ...

On 5/22/2008 at 1:47 PM, william.scherk said:

The substance of the book is made up of such editorializing. My biggest main beef with PARC is that kind of inflated language. I find the book almost hysterical, and cultish. Hysterical in its tone, and cultish in its political function. Its function is to defend the Founder against all attack. Since a cult mindset imposes a view of the Founder's divinity, any darker aspects of the Founder's personality or actions, if exposed, are exposed only as part of an effort to destroy or denigrate the Founder and her pure sect.

Any criticism is thus impure, evil, wrong, immoral, tainted by self-interest. Any tales that darken the persona of the Founder must be lies. Every last portent and implication takes on the taint of the malicious scribes.

It is this demonological high drama that takes my breath away. Where else but in Objectivism can be found this fraught struggle against realistic depictions of the Founder? Where else is a biography anathema?

Emotions, I've had a few ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...