caroljane

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,251

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by caroljane

    william.scherk

    Posted

    On 6/3/2021 at 3:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Here's Tim doing some more pearl clutching.

    I'm only mentioning this as an example. 

    I get great value from Tim Pool, but this is the kind of worm that shows up in his apples at times.

    I just ignore it, usually I don't even comment about it, and I watch other videos by him.

    :) 

    Michael

    Antifa must be losing their touch. If the assertions made here that they somehow succeeded in causing all the killings and assaults of Jan.6 , surely they could have got Mr. Ngo on their first try? 

    william.scherk

    Posted

    43 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Carol,

    If that is your intent, you have to double check everything coming from the fake news media.

    Everything, as the saying goes, even the words "the" and "and."

    The story they are selling you is false. They call it "controlling the narrative."

    And big tech social media constantly deletes evidence to the contrary and bans people who insist on posting it.

    Fake news media does not present it. Social media giants delete it.

    Then people like you--who only look at those sources of info--are left to wonder why certain information is not more public when you are caught spreading totally false info. Never forget, you got that totally false info from them. They integrated it into the core story they propagandize you with.

    So if you sincerely don't want to knowingly present things you believe to be untrue, double check it all when something comes from the mainstream. After you get debunked repeating their lies enough times, if you continue to repeat their lies without double checking, you will be presenting things you know are likely untrue.

    btw - My position about double checking is the same when the left is lied about. Except during the current phase, the mainstream media does not lie about the left. It did lie a lot against the left back during "weapons of mass destruction" phase and the Iraq war.

    Michael

     OK. I do believe in double checking the authenticity of whatI find difficult to accept as fact, but I do admit I tend to trust in CTVs reliability as in this instance.  It will be tiresome to record every news story that catches my interest and research all the participants, but I ll do it if I want to participate in discussing it henceforth if I can. Luckily l am on fairly good terms with some expert researchers here on OL !

    • Like 1
    william.scherk

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Carol,

    How can you possibly say things like this?

    Good God!

    He's said where in countless places on many occasions.

    Hell, I started a thread right here on OL solely for presenting solid evidence from different places (many of which Lin has mentioned).

    Are you lying on purpose or just faking it and botching it?

    Michael

    Just botching it. Giving impressions of a sound bite Tv interview on a subject on which I didn't,t have any knowledge.  I should not have bothered to post it. I really didn't know he had presented the evidence publicly on other occasions, but I should have. So I apologize to Mr. Wood unreservedly.

    I never, ever knowingly write anything here which I believe to be untrue, unless in obvious sarcasm . Nor do I write it elsewhere come to that.

     

     

    • Like 1
    william.scherk

    Posted

    Many thanks for this, the arguments he has are pretty much clear from this forceful statement.  The arguments themselves are kind of  unforceful to me, and sometimes inadvertently comical. 

    "Rod Rosenstein who is trying to protect hHillary Clinton  who is trying  to protect Mike Pence."Mr. Wood says. he continues, "I didn't say that."

    Sure, I lifted the text  out of its surroundings there, but  I couldn't resist this time. And the names of course are accurate and boy, talk about strange bedfellows.

    Besides instructing the legally uneducated in his audience about consistent consistency's important place in building credibility, he mentions documents which have disappeared and mountains of hard evidence which no judge would look at,but he doesn't tell the audience where they can look at it either. If it has been around the block so many times, why isn't it available to public view?

    Why was the guy threatened and tortured, To make him keep quiet?And since he wouldn't keep quiet why can't he accuse his torturers now, since  he is resolved to face whatever happens bolstered by his faith?  It seems ,to me with all the public nexposure he would be!/safer to do  so now than never before.

    Just my reactions and maybe way offbase, but I'm  a stranger in these parts.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    william.scherk

    Posted

    Bill, is there a transcript for this? Or if not could you précis his arguments? I don't watch most interviews or talking heads online because it takes so much longer than read does and I can't hear properly anyway.

    TIA mon gars, can't t wait till it's safe to travel to our rendezvous at the old rabbit farm. 

    Daunceless

    william.scherk

    Posted

    That would be... coming across this fun thread I had forgotten, on New Years' Day, in front of a roaring beach and walking along the snowbanks.. ohwell, you get the drift.

    Er MICHAEL, you know I am a collectivist and my original complo was expressive of appreciation for the collection of stunningly sharp, thoughtful, rigorously logical and/or down-on-the-floor funny productions he has produced here as posts/articles over the last seven years. Individually. 

    No conflict with your comments at all, at all. We all win.

    OL is no place for losers!

    william.scherk

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Carol,

    You drew an analogy but was not trying to draw any analogies?

    Hmmmmm...

    :) 

    Michael

    ok,  but like Stone, I did not notice it was an analogy!  I was thinking, intended or not the nazi crazies would take it as a covert symbol. and speculated (again I thought I was being quippy!) that there might have been other symbols there ....aaaargh!

    Wilde's apocryphal last words, as he turned his face to the wall of his boarding-house deathbed -

    "Either this wallpaper goes, or I do."

    william.scherk

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Carol,

    So you're saying that people who constantly use pedo symbols don't actually see them (by mistake) when they publish? But like Roger Stone knowing the meaning of the Nazi symbol, they know the meaning of the pedo symbols?

    :evil: 

    Goethe's last words: "Light! More light!"

    :) 

    Michael

    sorry!  It was I who brought in pedo symbols to muddy the waters in a (I thought) humorous fashion, in my original post.  Those people I know nothing about.

    I was not trying to draw any analogies.  

    william.scherk

    Posted

    59 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    William,

    Gimme a break.

    He made it look like Roger Stone was secretly celebrating his own Nazism and that of the Trump people.

    Since this point is lost on you, let me be clear.

    I'll go slow.

    Roger... Stone... is... not... a... Nazi...

    Roger... Stone... hates... Nazism...

    Any more questions about truth or is it still impossible to recognize?

    I can go even slower until you get it if you like...

    :evil: 

    btw - Making a mistake of not seeing something is not a sign of stupidity. It's a good taunt to say that, but it's not accurate.

    Michael

    Giving William a break,  Michael, don't you think he was just being mischievous and recalling the pedo-symbolism awfulness that Letendre has introduced on OL?  I did (without asking him to verify) when I replied in the light way I did - I I am glad Roger Stone hates Nazis ! So do I. But covert signalling does appeal to lots of sick people, who vote, and like Trump's famous "good people on both sides" quote, cannot be entirely dismissed

    I don't think you need to go any slower here.

     

    william.scherk

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I recommend Jordan Peterson's views on Freud.

    People should look at that if they want to see an intelligent perspective that (I imagine) differs wildly from Crews.

    Besides, I suspect the attacks on Freud are indirect attacks on Peterson because he preaches self-reliance rather than nanny-state reliance. So this is as good a recommendation as any for those who want extra grounding in why the debate about Freud, of all things, rages.

    At least the only political relevance I see in going after Freud these days is to try to undermine the credibility of a prominent intellectual who is becoming culturally effective--and not in a way the ruling class wants.

    Michael

    I had not heard of Jordan Peterson, that is to say I had not read of him (and still haven't) except here from you, although the name rings a dim bell (insert joke here,my dear fans).

    I can assure you that my reaction to the Crews' review had nothing to do with  indirectly attacking Peterson, and everything to do with my own reaction to Freud;s theories and the rarefied middle-class Viennese  social incubator in which he formulated them.  He assumed HerrS. and Fraulein C. were examples of he timeless father and daughter relations - yet he never touches on actual incest, or actual pedophilia,, - which  perhaps, never occurred except in fantasy, in his time and place,

    william.scherk

    Posted

    I will definitely read this.

    Freud deserves to be bashed, especially for his "theory" that girls experience anxiety at lacking penises  as they grow up. Most girls would tell you they would feel much more anxiety at suddenly acquiring one.  Even before I had a clear idea of what a penis is (and you would be shocked at how old I was when that happened) I knew that this idea was fantastically ridiculous.

    • Like 1
    william.scherk

    Posted

    10 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Need help in understanding why President Trump does not fire Sessions?

    Owen Shroyer and Roger Stone put their heads together ... and almost come to a conclusion:

     

    I watched this infomercial, up until  after the T-shirt ads, to the video and book shilling, but after that my usually fairly open mind just closed.

    If this is a sample of where Jonathan gets his talking points,  I guess I can see how he could call me a racist--hey Lebron! You abandoned Toronto too soon - you might need the underground railroad again, and bring Kaepernick with you. The CFL is way more fun, all things considered. 

    william.scherk

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Jonathan said:

     

     No one has trashed and ridiculed war heroes, Gold Star mothers, dead elementary school students and their classmates

     

    No one except Trump , who is amply documented for saying those things as have his spokespeopl;e, in his name.

    .That's it for now,  but not to worry, I'm sure more enthusiastic Trump corroborators will be along soon..

     

    william.scherk

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    I'm not following. What's the point? Is it that we're supposed to be worked up about lies about Tom Hanks, but not about Trump? It's horrible for people to believe false reports that Hanks is a pedophile, but it's perfectly acceptable to believe reports that Trump hates immigrants, is a racist, mocks handicapped people's handicaps, etc.?

    J

    I just read this again.  Surely you saw Trump mocking a handicapped reporter- it was a big hit with his audience, maybe helped get him elected - or  call Mexicans rapists?  These were the takeaways from  his tweets and sound bites we all saw before his election and after. He has never apologized for them. The implications are pretty clear. They are not "reports"but his own words.