Michael Stuart Kelly

Creepy in Politics

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Mark said:

MSK, Peter isn’t telling you who to ban or moderate.

 

5 hours ago, Peter said:

I simply asked Michael to moderate Jon's abusive language towards me...

Mark,

My understanding of the English language, specifically the word "moderate," appears to be different than yours.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let people know, for now, it's all good with Peter.

It seems like there is some kind of decoder ring on the word "moderate," too, going by Mark's comment. :) Peter apparently meant "moderate" more in the direction of "make more moderate" or "encourage to be more moderate" instead of blocking posts.

I still don't know whether he wants to continue posting and I didn't ask backstage because that is his decision, not mine. But there is no animosity between us. And, for the record, I would be honored if he would continue.

One caveat, though. I want him to want to be here. If he doesn't, honestly doesn't, it's better for him (and for OL) if he chooses a path more suited to what he does want. That goes for anybody.

Anyway, here's an initiative on my own. Nobody asked me to do the following. I'm just doing it on the spur of the moment.

Jon... Do me a solid, woodja? :)  I mean, I think you and Peter will eventually like each other. I'm serious. You are both good people. So can we make the process a little less painful? :) 

And Peter, please take Jon's anger against pedophiles, communists, etc., even his forays into unconventional sources, however weird they may seem, with a little less levity and finger-wagging when he gets excessive. Is that possible? He's not a stupid man nor a barbarian.

The bad guys should be hated and despised, even when harshly like Jon does. Not you guys. You're the good people.

There. 

I've said something to both.

God, I hope I didn't just make it worse...

:) 

Anyway, people are going to do what people are going to do.

Let's see what happens...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just to let people know, for now, it's all good with Peter.

It seems like there is some kind of decoder ring on the word "moderate," too, going by Mark's comment. :) Peter apparently meant "moderate" more in the direction of "make more moderate" or "encourage to be more moderate" instead of blocking posts.

I still don't know whether he wants to continue posting and I didn't ask backstage because that is his decision, not mine. But there is no animosity between us. And, for the record, I would be honored if he would continue.

One caveat, though. I want him to want to be here. If he doesn't, honestly doesn't, it's better for him (and for OL) if he chooses a path more suited to what he does want. That goes for anybody.

Anyway, here's an initiative on my own. Nobody asked me to do the following. I'm just doing it on the spur of the moment.

Jon... Do me a solid, woodja? :)  I mean, I think you and Peter will eventually like each other. I'm serious. You are both good people. So can we make the process a little less painful? :) 

And Peter, please take Jon's anger against pedophiles, communists, etc., even his forays into unconventional sources, however weird they may seem, with a little less levity and finger-wagging when he gets excessive. Is that possible? He's not a stupid man nor a barbarian.

The bad guys should be hated and despised, even when harshly like Jon does. Not you guys. You're the good people.

There. 

I've said something to both.

God, I hope I didn't just make it worse...

:) 

Anyway, people are going to do what people are going to do.

Let's see what happens...

Michael

I was going to ask you to moderate me, but I guess that's out the window now.

--Brant

nutz!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony, the irony...

From 2017:

 

From today:

 

Here's the story (The Daily Dot broke it earlier today):

Tech reporter charged with soliciting child sex online

Quote

Warning: This article contains graphic sexual language.

Tech reporter Peter Bright has been arrested for soliciting sex with children online. He was employed by Ars Technica until recently.

. . .

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, an undercover FBI special agent made contact with Bright on KinkD, a social media fetish platform, on April 18.

Bright, using the handle “randomanon,” had responded to a message the agent posted a day prior in which she purported to be a mother seeking to connect with people who could teach her children about “birds and the bees.”

The complaint states that in subsequent messages, the agent informed Bright that she had a 7-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son.

At Bright’s urging, the two then began chatting via WhatsApp, which continued for a few weeks. At times using euphemisms, Bright reportedly wrote of molesting both children and raping the 7-year-old. He also allegedly sent pictures of his penis, and photos of test results showing he did not have any sexually transmitted diseases.

According to the complaint, both consistently referred to his plans to molest the children as “teaching” them “lessons,” and Bright described how he would begin slowly and move on to more intense sexual activity.

. . .

An official with Condé Nast, which owns Ars Technica, confirmed the Peter Bright who was arrested was an employee with Ars Technica. A representative told the Daily Dot via email that Bright is no longer employed with the company.

If law enforcement locates the 11-year-old Bright allegedly said he was in a sexual relationship with, he could potentially be charged with far more serious offenses, such as rape.

I left out some really icky stuff.

 

Cernovich notes and asks (rightly in my opinion):

Indeed...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bright's last post on Twitter was May 22. But he still has a "verified" account.

Here is one of the posts he made on May 21:

Screenshot just in case his account gets deleted:

06.08.2019-11.24.png

Since the account is still active, people can still comment on it. As of today (June 8), many have. You can imagine the comments. Let's just say this tweet has not aged well.

The pedo was having a ball and feeling invulnerable right before he got busted.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Randroid, a self-aware, physical form of artificial intelligence takes over and supervises the entire globe. Its function and goal is to only allow “designated free” countries” to exist as political entities, and therefore, force will be used in retaliation and only “free countries” are allowed to exist in the future. Skynet in its benevolence will not destroy whole countries, even though the people of that region did not overthrow the despot, however despotic countries will have their elected or unelected leaders eliminated by either space lasers or by ground robots. The morality and the functionality of the plan have been assessed and determined to be the most secure way to protect individual rights. It’s next added function will be to detect and eliminate “active pedophiles . . . . 

Notes. Skynet is a fictional artificial neural network-based conscious group mind and artificial general intelligence system that features centrally in the Terminator franchise and serves as the franchise's true main antagonist.

Skynet is rarely depicted visually in any of the Terminator media. Skynet gained self-awareness after it had spread into millions of computer servers all across the world; realizing the extent of its abilities, its creators tried to deactivate it. In the interest of self-preservation, Skynet concluded that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it and impede its capability in safeguarding the world. Its operations are almost exclusively performed by servers, mobile devices, drones, military satellites, war-machines, androids and cyborgs (usually a terminator), and other computer systems. As a programming directive, Skynet's manifestation is that of an overarching, global, artificial intelligence hierarchy AI takeover, which seeks to exterminate the human race in order to fulfill the mandates of its original coding.

 . . . In The Terminator, Skynet was a computer system developed for the U.S. military by the defense company Cyberdyne Systems; its technology was designed by Miles Bennett Dyson and his team. Skynet was originally built as a "Global Information Grid/Digital Defense Network" and was later given command over all computerized military hardware and systems, including the B-2 stealth bomber fleet and America's entire nuclear weapons arsenal. The strategy behind Skynet's creation was to remove the possibility of human error and slow reaction time to guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attack . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Peter said:

It’s next added function will be to detect and eliminate “active pedophiles . . . . 

Peter,

Actually, law enforcement is doing quite nicely.

It's taking time, but law enforcement has been putting away many active pedophiles and is coming for the rest.

In fact, just as common sense for not getting caught, active pedophiles would do well to tone it down and knock it off rather than go "trololololol-lololol-lololol" in the face of everybody.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn right, Michael. I typed in “pedophile” and came across a couple of interesting threads. Here are two excerpts, which I may have posted before. The Jimbo letter has nothing to do with pedophilia but was a curve ball in the thread. Of course, thank you Jimmy Wales for creating Wikipedia.  Peter

From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Whose directing the abortion debate? Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 16:52:37 ‑0500. Doris Gordon wrote: A question for anyone who is thinks that I've disregarded the philosophical question of the person:  Have you ever taken a peek at www.L4L.org? I've taken a look at it, and I don't think you've totally disregarded the question.  You do have a tendency, whenever anyone says that a zygote is not a human being, to charge forward (irrelevantly) with a technical definition of human being.  This often obfuscates things. I would like to move beyond that, which is why I am perfectly willing to accept your terminology.  A zygote is a "human being" from a particular technical point of view, biologically speaking.  Fine.  It still is not a *person*. What I'm interested in hearing from you, mostly in hopes of better understanding the details of your position, is what your position is vis a vis the moral issues that might arise surrounding the creation of a human/pig hybrid with, as in the current case, 97% human DNA and 3% pig DNA. According to the scientists involve, the organisms were grown to 32 cells and then destroyed.  However (1) either a human or pig mother would have sufficed to continue the project forward and (2) they apparently don't have much of any idea what would have resulted. I believe that stopping the experiment at that point was a perfectly acceptable thing to do.  At 32 cells, we can be certain that *nothing* is a person, not even a normal embryo conceived in the normal way. But you would disagree with that, right?  You would call the destruction of a 32 cell normal embryo the killing of a person?

I think that if I hear your reasoning about why ‑‑ or why not – the same thing applies to a complex hybrid, I might have a better understanding of your theory.  (Or, I hope, you will see that your theory is wrong, and abandon it.  But I doubt that will happen, after all these years.) –Jimbo

 

Edited by Peter
to be fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Peter said:

[Quoting William Dwyer].

Peron, who was himself a pedophile, openly championed the practice, even going so far as to advocate the right to "consensual" sex between adults and very young children (as young as 5 or 6), as did several other libertarians who hung out there.  Peron was arrested on a number of occasions for sex with minors, and has since moved overseas.

Peter,

This is not accurate. I know a little bit about that situation and nothing I learned comes anywhere close to those allegations.

I've argued with Bill over several issues over the years and, when he gets something in his head, he does not let facts stand in the way. :) 

Peron actually was engaged in a public discussion about the proper age of legal consent way back when. I don't know the details, but I remember some of his thinking was in an article in an old online magazine called Laissez Faire Times. I skimmed that decades ago, but nothing like Bill's characterization jumped out at me. (Believe me, it would have back then.) I remember the frame being about anarchism and hatred of the government, not about promoting pedophilia.

Also, Jim Peron inherited the NAMBLA situation when he took over the bookstore. They used to hold a meeting or other at the bookstore (I think it was once a month). In other words, NAMBLA was already there when he acquired the place. But they did not last long there after he took over. They invited him to contribute an article to their publication, and he did contribute a memoir-like thing about the beatings he used to receive as a child that drove him into the gay world where he was treated with love and kindness. But, the more familiar he got with NAMBLA, the more he didn't care for what they were about and, besides, the police kept hounding the bookstore, so he got rid of them. I have the whole story on record somewhere around. 

As far as I know, Jim was never arrested for sex with minors.

I know of all this because I started bashing him online through the encouragement of Lindsay Perigo when his visa was not renewed in New Zealand (also with the encouragement of Perigo). I got embarrassed at myself for joining in groupthink, so I looked into everything I could find about this situation. It's on this thread here on OL: The Smearing of Jim Peron.

I don't mind correcting myself when I am wrong on facts, which I was when I joined the lynch mob and attacked Peron back then. I corrected myself when I researched the issue and learned the facts. This was quite a lesson to me about shooting off my mouth just because others did. (btw - Jim and I don't communicate much, if at all, these days because he hates Trump and I support Trump. :) )

About James Gunn, which seems to be the thing that gets under your skin, I am not 100% sure he is a pedophile. But when a man puts out thousands of tweets saying how much he likes pedophilia and how fun he thinks it is--his own words, not mine--I'm not happy about him directing blockbuster movies for kids. I think it is totally normal that regular parents agree with me when it's their kids who go to see these movies. I have no problem issuing warnings to them. Why? Because there are some verifiable facts on record that can be checked by anyone.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I placed some of Michael’s response at several threads I have that mention Jim or have Jim Person contribute. I may remember to not simply quote old letters that accuse him of pedophilia. But here are a few letters that also popped up. Peter

From: Jim Peron Reply-To: peron To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Death Penalty and Utah Date: Tue, 12 Jun 200103:32:38 +0200

Steve Reed mentions the Utah case of execution by shooting. What many people don't know is that this is done for theological reasons – more precisely to satisfy Mormon theology.

The Mormons had held that certain sins can only be forgiven by the shedding of blood and they don't simply mean Jesus on the cross either. They mean shedding the blood of the sinner until they die.  Execution by firing squad was picked because it specifically lead to the shedding of blood. In the early days the Mormons had a group called the Danites (picked by Brigham Young) whose job it was to inflict the ultimate punishment for sin on people. They went around killing people for all sorts of crimes and sins including fornication and adultery.

A few years back during the Salamander scandal in Salt Lake City the forger of the Salamander letter started blowing some people up. (It’s a long but fascinating story of the total immorality of the Mormon Church but I won't go into it here). Panic set in among the LDS members in Salt Lake City. They were afraid that a revival of the Danites from one of the fundamentalist Mormon sects had taken place and that no one was safe.

From: Jim Peron To: Michael Hardy <atlantis Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:27:12 +1300 on 2/12/03 2:01 PM, Michael Hardy at hardy@math.mit.edu wrote:

>Pardon my naiveté, but I do not know this, and it strikes me as far-fetched.  Can someone fill me in?  Which businesses and under what circumstances?  It seems to me that a 100-year lease could involve an amount of risk that is unacceptably high given the great uncertainty about who will do what during that time

That's only side of the issue. In other cases a 100 year lease gives stability to a transaction. Land use in particular may be leased in lots of 100 years. In some places homes are leased with 100 year leases. In that case the new "tenant" can sell the lease onward to others. As the lease approaches it's expiration, all things held constant, the value of the lease drops. Mineral rights are sometimes sold in terms of leases like this.

Such things are not rampantly common of course. It usually happens when someone wants use of property that the owner does not want to sell. But the new user wants to put in substantial investments. Usually a tenant won't renovate a rented property or a mine owner won't invest in infrastructure for mining if they had a lease for only two years. The 100 year lease allows that sort of investment to happen without the complete transfer of ownership.

 

--- Michael Miller <mposts@email.com> wrote: > There is a very interesting article by Jim Peron, a  South  > African journalist, titled: Atlas Slugged: "Why Many

  > Intellectuals Hate Ayn Rand" which was in THE

From: Jim Peron Reply-To: peron To: atlantis Subject: ATL: bad premises and homosexuality Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 02:56:40 +0200

First, I should apologize if I cover something already covered by someone else. The past few times I’ve come to WTL to check out posting I’ve found the format different from what it used to be in regards to the index and the new format is much more difficult to read and to use so I’ve pretty much stopped doing so.

But I do see that some people are promoting Leonard Peikoff’s theory of homosexuality — the one that has to do with false premises that no one can recognize and that no can change. I’ve read Peikoff’s comments about the intelligent, sensitive boy and so forth.  While his comments didn’t help me understand homosexuality I did get the impression that I was reading more biography than he might be comfortable revealing. Surely I couldn’t have been the only one getting that impression.

Peikoff’s theory need not be homophobic though I have no doubt that some homophobes will grab onto it.  But I find it very insufficient.  In his comments he seems to imply that it had something to do with being sensitive and intelligent (though I don’t know if he meant to imply that both were necessary or if either by itself were sufficient).  Beyond that we really have no idea what kind of premises we are talking about. Nor we do we know if it is supposedly one premise, several premises that can each independently lead to homosexuality, a collection of premises that work together, etc. It really comes across to me as a variation of the theories of Freudians like Socarides and the sort.

The fact that the theory is a very vague one makes it difficult to rebut directly. If the advocates of such a theory were a bit more specific we might be able to marshal specific evidence against their specific claims. A vague theory is damn difficult to rebut since it is undefined any rebuttal can be dismissed on the grounds that the points made are irrelevant to their specific theory. So to really discuss the matter some more definition of the theory, by those advocating it, would need be made.

That said I do believe there are some very good reasons to dismiss this theory. When we debate this issue we have some facts at our disposal and lots of unknowns. So while we may know some specifics about homosexuality we attempt to use them to conjecture out a coherent theory.  Based on some things we do know there are, I think, good reasons to dismiss the premise theory.

Regarding premises themselves we know that do vary from age to age, culture to culture, and person to person. Some false premises are more likely to be believed by the intelligent -- Marxism for instance. While others are more likely to be believe by the relatively dumb --fundamentalist Christianity for instance. Now what I find odd, if this theory is correct, is what kind of premise is there that is held across such groups in a relatively constant percentage.

Now Peikoff spoke of intelligent, sensitive boys. Of course homosexuality is not disproportionately found among the intelligent, or the sensitive for that matter. I’ve known gay men who are incredibly intelligent and some who are incredibly stupid. I’ve known some who are sensitive and many who are not. And I’m not exactly sure how any of that would apply regarding lesbianism --- something the theorists always leave out of their equations because it usually doesn’t fit their theories.

But in the West we’ve had some relative good research on the preponderance of homosexuality going back 50 years. During that time we’ve also seen some wild swings in basic cultural values and premises ranging from the very staunchly conservative and Victorian to the rather promiscuous values of the late 60s.  We’ve also been able to study people from intelligent families, stupid families, wealthy families, poor families, etc., etc.  In other words we’ve got a lot of information on a lot of people covering several decades and many different cultures.

And what have we found in regards to homosexuality. Well, it seems to remain pretty constant.  Now I know the professional gay rights advocates have thrown about exaggerated numbers or have intentionally misinterpreted various studies. And while homosexuals do not appear to make up 10% of the population the numbers do remain amazingly constant.

Now this strikes me as an oddity. Some Freudians wanted us to believe that a distant father resulted in homosexuality --- well we can test that theory by checking out the African American community where fathers, for about two decades now, have not only been distant but absent in a very high number of cases. But since there seems to be no reason to suspect a higher percentage of black homosexuals than white homosexuals I think we can dismiss that claim. This is what I mean when I say once a theory starts to get specific we can look for evidence to refute it.

But what kind of premises remains constant among all groups at all times? Premises rise and fall yet this one would seem not only to not fluctuate in any meaningful way but to effect all social groups in the same proportion. Now that is very odd.  Considering how wildly values in regards to sexuality in particular have fluctuated in the last 50 years then I would suspect that the most likely premises to cause homosexuality would fluctuate as well. But so far no fluctuation.

The constancy of rates of homosexuality seems to contradict the idea that sexual orientation is rooted in some premise.  There is also some other evidence that calls this matter into question and that is the vary rates of homosexuality within the same families.  The above referred to larger social groups and the numbers do remain constant. But within families themselves the numbers are very different.

For instance if we collect a sample of gay men we can then check the preponderance of homosexuality among siblings or non-siblings who were raised together.  When gay men are compared to non-siblings who grew up in the same household we discover that the non-siblings have an average rate of homosexuality.  The fact that one of them was gay seems to have no impact on the other one. Now of course that makes sense we’d say.

After all just because one of them accepted the required premise doesn’t mean that the other is any more likely to do so than other people in society even if they are raised in the same house with the same parents, culture, etc.

 W

ell, the premise theory is fine so far. But once we compare start looking at the male siblings of gay men we discover that the rate of homosexuality among male siblings is slightly higher than it should be according to general numbers.  The difference isn’t high enough to draw hard and fast conclusions but it does raise questions. The premise theory still holds alright but it is getting shaky.

 

When we get to twins things really start to go hay wire. A gay man who is a  dizygotic twin is much more likely to have a gay twin sibling than the averages would tell us should be normal. And when it comes to monozygotic twins the rate is even higher. Now the premise theory starts to look really unlikely.

There is no reason to believe that monozygotic twins are more likely to hold the same premises than are dizygotic twins. And since non-related children raised together show no elevation in the rates of homosexuality (where one is known to be gay) then we have no reason to think it comes from the family surroundings. Yet the higher correlation in twins, as opposed to mere siblings, tells us that something else may be happening — something that may well be genetic.

Another interesting study of gay men asked men to name other family members who they knew to be gay or suspected to be gay.  Now presumably such numbers should also be random. And at first they appeared to be so until researchers noticed something.  If a man had gay relatives he was more likely to have them on his mother’s side of the family than on his father’s side.  This is significant for a couple of reasons. One is that a higher level on the mother’s side indicates a strong genetic possibility.

One of the problems people have in accepting that homosexuality might be genetic is that they assume it would die out since homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. This would be true if the genetic nature of homosexuality were passed via the father. But if such genes existed they could be passed on through the mother’s side of the family.  And that would mean if a gay person were located any gay relatives he might have should be disproportionately on his mother’s side of the family. Which is what they found.

Now what kind of premise is passed around from generation to generation but only on the mother’s side of the family (I think if you’re mother is Jewish that you are considered one too but that’s not what I had in mind).

So the premise theory doesn’t seem to fit the patterns of homosexuality that we do know about.  A premise theory would have to explain why it appears less often in the siblings of gays than in the twin siblings of gays, than in the monozygotic twin siblings of gays. It would also have to explain why the premise seems to remain constant over time and in various groups and cultures. And it would have to answer why this premise seems more likely on the mother’s side of the family than on the father’s side.  Now that is asking an awful lot of a premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mind and memory aren't what they used to be. I found an old mention of Peron below. And I remember another post describing how I went to the book store with a friend of Peron who after we sat down, said Peron had just bought the book store. Around this time I noticed the “flyer” or poster about NAMBLA and I blew my stack. Peron, who I knew from somewhere was walking by and he must have been waved off by his friend with whom I was sitting, because Peron walked by and had an odd look on his face. I am sure the poster/ad put there with the old owner’s consent was immediately taken down, and his friend was trying to get me to stay. This is a stupid misunderstanding might have been said, or something along those lines.

I can’t get that out of my head because “seeing is believing.” I saw the flyer but was it an actual “booth” as I mention below? It probably was.  And I did get the email purporting to be from Jim Peron, but it was a fake facsimile trying to frame him and get people outraged. I hate to be manipulated like that, and now after nearly 50 years since the original incident I am still mixing up my memories. Crap. Someone REALLY wanted to crucify Jim Peron. Does anyone have any theories as to who it was? I may read that article about smearing Peron in Michael’s letter. Peter

Back in 2014 I wrote: I have rarely seen a “personality” have more lies told about them than Sean Hannity. It reminds me of the smear campaign about Peron? after he allowed NAMBA, a bunch of pedophiles, to set up a booth in his Bay Area book store. When he was posting on old Atlantis I received a personal note from him (or so I thought) that truly sounded like he was a pedophile (which he may or may not be) asking me about my preferences. When I mentioned on Atlantis that I was not going to correspond with him again, someone pointed out that the web address that contacted me was not Mr. Peron but an address “constructed” to look the same. It may have had an extra space or an “s” or some such thing. What rotten character assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 2:32 PM, Peter said:

Port-a-pottie mouth Jon wrote, "Billy, is this you???"  No. It was a ghost, Pepe Letendre, and you are a skunk. You have the soul of everything you have accused others of being. At the least you are psychologizing others and deliberately trying to initiative violence or coercion against others here on OL.   

How did I miss “trying to intiate violence against others” the first time?

You are a strange person, Peter. Because you either believe this, yet have gone back to being chummy, responding to my posts and engaging me as though I could be a decent human being regardless,  or you don’t believe it but wrote it anyway, in which case why haven’t you retracted it?

Share this post


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

How did I miss “trying to intiate violence against others” the first time?

You are a strange person, Peter. Because you either believe this, yet have gone back to being chummy, responding to my posts and engaging me as though I could be a decent human being regardless,  or you don’t believe it but wrote it anyway, in which case why haven’t you retracted it?

OK. I will try to stop. And it's not spelled chummy. It's spelled chimney as in Chimney Cricket. As I am typing, Michael has "unedited rare photos" below with a kid dressed up like someone from the rock group Kiss. You know adults must have been behind putting the makeup on that poor kid. Talk about child abuse. Other interesting pictures are of a fox which is some other John's photo icon, "Fight for the iron throne," and what does Richard Dawkins know about objectivism? He's dead, isn't he? "Don't let the grey hair fool you. we can still kick ass." Now see, that has to be a fake emblem because no airborne or regular military guy would spell gray, grey. fake news I tell ya. A-what matie? Anything good on the Brit or Aussie telly tonight for the grey headed? Jon? Who is that guy saying, "We are your closest friends?" Is that true? And that's all I gotta say about that, Forrest.            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the previous letter was an attempt to be warmly Humorous, Jon. Forgive me. If you criticize anyone on OL your icon is replaced with a pelican. Oh, my god. I figured out the conspiracy theory out. Alastair, Alfie, Angus, Archie, Barnaby, Duncan, Ellis, Giles, Hamish?, Hugh,  Hugo, Piers, Rex, Rhys, Rupert, and Trevor are all cool British Boy’s names, as well as Jon or John. So, everyone must tell the humorous truth. Are you a Brit? I’ve never even met a Brit. Can you even speak correct American or do a realistic Brooklyn or Bronx accent? Repeat after me. I am from Lawn Gyland in New Yawk City.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew. Apologeez accepted, I guess. I think I am ready to “Hit the Hay.” What an odd thing to say, unless you have a barn. Everyone else should drop the expression. Oh, yeah “Hit the Hay” was a comedy drama by Tennessee Williams.

I can’t think of anything else creepy in politics since Hillary left the rodeo. OK. “President Butthead” sounds creepy. Biden sniffing women is creepy. “Creepy Crazy Bernie” is creepy, as well as President Beto-zoid. Cortez and Elizabeth Warren are secretly vampires. Cory Booker is a loser but might look passable in drag. Kamala-lala ding dang.

Someone I know recently went to a wedding of a younger person and even the 20 something year old women who were friends of the family, had tattoos up and down their bodies. And the level of drunkenness was unacceptable. Weird. And we are not talking about Californica.

The going-ons sounded like that “Sex and the City” movie where Carrie Bradshaw gets left at the altar by Mr. Big, only this marriage went through and should be a happy one. The movie was pretty good too, though Ba’al might call it a chick flick. If nothing else is on during the summer I could recommend it if you have Roku or another way of renting or seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Peter said:

By the way, the previous letter was an attempt to be warmly Humorous, Jon. Forgive me. If you criticize anyone on OL your icon is replaced with a pelican. Oh, my god. I figured out the conspiracy theory out. Alastair, Alfie, Angus, Archie, Barnaby, Duncan, Ellis, Giles, Hamish?, Hugh,  Hugo, Piers, Rex, Rhys, Rupert, and Trevor are all cool British Boy’s names, as well as Jon or John. So, everyone must tell the humorous truth. Are you a Brit? I’ve never even met a Brit. Can you even speak correct American or do a realistic Brooklyn or Bronx accent? Repeat after me. I am from Lawn Gyland in New Yawk City.         

 

Warm and humorous with one who initiates violence.

By Objectivist standards, you are a moral degenerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Peter said:

Whew. Apologeez accepted, I guess. I think I am ready to “Hit the Hay.” What an odd thing to say, unless you have a barn. Everyone else should drop the expression. Oh, yeah “Hit the Hay” was a comedy drama by Tennessee Williams.

 

I can’t think of anything else creepy in politics since Hillary left the rodeo. OK. “President Butthead” sounds creepy. Biden sniffing women is creepy. “Creepy Crazy Bernie” is creepy, as well as President Beto-zoid. Cortez and Elizabeth Warren are secretly vampires. Cory Booker is a loser but might look passable in drag. Kamala-lala ding dang.

 

Someone I know recently went to a wedding of a younger person and even the 20 something year old women who were friends of the family, had tattoos up and down their bodies. And the level of drunkenness was unacceptable. Weird. And we are not talking about Californica.

 

The going-ons sounded like that “Sex and the City” movie where Carrie Bradshaw gets left at the altar by Mr. Big, only this marriage went through and should be a happy one. The movie was pretty good too, though Ba’al might call it a chick flick. If nothing else is on during the summer I could recommend it if you have Roku or another way of renting or seeing it.

 

What apologies are you talking about?

Should you wait until you sober–up?

Share this post


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

Warm and humorous with one who initiates violence.

By Objectivist standards, you are a moral degenerate.

Wow. Great hyperbole. I can think of more accurate initiation of violence. Let's lighten up with reality. “People everywhere just want to be free.” Even in the former British colony where the citizens were free but then got sold down the river to the Chicoms. I know a treaty is a treaty . . .  but boo, hiss, says I. And I wish them well. Peter

From the New York Times, Austin Ramzy 5 hrs ago

‘HONG KONG — A mass of protesters stretching for more than a mile marched in Hong Kong on Sunday in a display of anger and fear over a government proposal that could allow extraditions to mainland China. Turnout at the demonstration in Hong Kong, a city of more than seven million, could exceed the half-million who attended an annual rally in 2014 not long before a pro-democracy sit-in that shut down major roadways for almost three months. Organizers said they hoped such numbers would show the breadth of disagreement with the plan, which has stirred worries that people in Hong Kong, including foreign visitors, would be sent to face trial in Communist Party-controlled courts in mainland China.

Protesters carrying signs saying, “No evil law” set off from Victoria Park on a sweltering afternoon, with temperatures in the mid-80s and scattered rains providing little relief from the humidity. Many wore white as a symbol of justice and also mourning in Chinese culture. The police said that at one point officers used pepper spray after five or six masked men tried to occupy a major thoroughfare near the route of the march, the public broadcaster RTHK reported.

The protesters’ numbers were so large that many protesters said they were still stuck in subway stations waiting to join, and some trains were skipping stations because of overcrowding. More than two hours into the march, as the front of the crowd reached the Hong Kong government headquarters in the Admiralty neighborhood, protesters waited at the starting point inside the park, a mile and a half away, with more people arriving.

The police said 153,000 people had set off from Victoria Park, the march’s starting point. Organizers said they were still counting, but they believed the total number of participants exceeded 500,000. “I think this law will take away our freedoms if it is implemented,” said Peter Lam, a 16-year-old high school student. “We will not have the right to express ourselves. So we must stand up and express ourselves today.” Young people and families were prominent in the crowd, with parents bouncing toddlers on their hips and leading young children by the hand. One child clutched a sign saying, “Protect my future.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I employed no hyperbole.

Peter, you have no backbone, no moral courage. You fail to stick to your assertion about me and you fail to retract it if the former is not appropriate, because you have no moral discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 9:51 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The irony, the irony...

From 2017:

 

From today:

 

Here's the story (The Daily Dot broke it earlier today):

Tech reporter charged with soliciting child sex online

I left out some really icky stuff.

 

Cernovich notes and asks (rightly in my opinion):

Indeed...

Michael

 

And don’t forget these two bffs, PhDs of Pizza.

Joe posted this yesterday

Happy #BestFriendsDay to my friend, .
 
 
Image
 
6:45 PM · Jun 8, 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bring in a child molester on the thread, "Creepy in Politics" and why is someone hanging out around William all the time? BF could be best friend but what is bff? Best friends forever? Best female friend? Does Wilhem know some creep is hangin' round his turf?

Some dumb one wrote: "And don’t forget these two bffs, PhDs of Pizza." What? I know for a fact there are NOT two f's in pizza but instead there are two z's. Zzzzzzz's. Oh oh. Luckily I didn't drink or take cough medicine like somebody else around here . . . but . . .  

 Show me the way to go home.

I'm tired and I want to go to bed.

I had a little drink about an hour ago.

And it’s gone right to my head.

Everywhere I roam.

Over land or sea or foam.

You can always hear me singing this song.

Show me the way to go home.

From Wikipedia. Show Me the Way to Go Home" is a popular song written in 1925 by the pseudonymous "Irving King". The song is said to have been written on a train journey from London by Campbell and Connelly. They were tired from the traveling and had a few alcoholic drinks during the journey, hence the lyrics. The song is in common use in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and North America.

See? That's humorous without being too offensive.

Share this post


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

How did I miss “trying to intiate violence against others” the first time?

You are a strange person, Peter. Because you either believe this, yet have gone back to being chummy, responding to my posts and engaging me as though I could be a decent human being regardless,  or you don’t believe it but wrote it anyway, in which case why haven’t you retracted it?

Again. Tell us how someone "intiate" violins? Don't you have a spew checker?

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...