Not Good - Iran Escalation (flame war)

[Ellen Stuttle]

15 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

It was a version of the oldie but goodie. ‘Too many people would have to go along, too vast, etc.’

 

13 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I found it.

Ellen Stuttle

Posted November 13, 2018

   On 11/12/2018 at 1:47 PM,  Jon Letendre said: 

I’m not sure what distinction you make in your first paragraph. I am saying the real leaders of The Gang are many and United,  that they use blackmail and mind control and more to direct the activities of members and exert worldwide influence and control.

Don't you see a difference between keeping group members in line with blackmail and controlling, for instance, whether or not the North Korean government resorts to using nuclear weaponry?

Also, a difference between affecting what happens and running the show?  Even on the level of keeping group members obedient with blackmail, there's no guarantee of compliance.  Plus, the greater the number of people in a group, the smaller the chances of unanimity.  There are just too many factors for there to be a central control on the scale you appear to be saying exists. [Jon’s bold]

Anyway, I don't want to be arguing with you about who is or isn't a Gang member and to what extent the Gang runs world affairs.

My concern is with a small group of people who are not Gang members, who include a couple brilliant biochemists in their number, and who are developing ingenious biological methods of thinning out the globe's human population.

A few things you said sparked my curiosity as to whether or not your sources are aware of the schemes I mean.  Doesn't sound as if they are.



 Ellen

 

Excerpting the part you bolded:

[ES wrote, 11/13/18]

"Plus, the greater the number of people in a group, the smaller the chances of unanimity.  There are just too many factors for there to be a central control on the scale you appear to be saying exists. [Jon’s bold]"

I stand by the first sentence.  There's an inverse relationship between the size of a group and the chances of unanimity.  Not a mathematically precise relationship like an inverse square law, and there are groups where pretty much everyone professes the same beliefs, whatever doubts or disagreements they might keep to themselves.  But you'd written in the post to which I replied that "the real leaders of The Gang are many and United."  The larger the "many," the smaller the chances of "United."

I'm still unclear as to what you believe about the degree of central control.  I'll put it in question form:

Do you believe that there's a central group of schemers who draw up plans for world control?  If so, how many members do you think there are in that central group?

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

To Michael and all others reading this. I’m thinking about taking another month off from communicating and supporting OL. I would hate to see such a wonderful site become a toxic waste dump. Are those posts conducive to living like an objectivist? Peter

It takes two to tango, Peter, and there was no flame war until you started one when you said there were voices in my head. You like to pretend that is civil, honest discourse. You don’t appear to possess the discipline to stay on the plane of ideas and refrain from personal attacks. I will never sit down and take your personal attacks. You also don’t appear to possess the discipline to stop engaging me altogether. Without that shortcoming there could be no problem between us. The fundamental problem is the same for you and for Billy: As soon as you drop the stalker behavior, interactions with the would-be victim will immediately cease. But neither of you is willing to stop. 

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

 

Excerpting the part you bolded:

[ES wrote, 11/13/18]

"Plus, the greater the number of people in a group, the smaller the chances of unanimity.  There are just too many factors for there to be a central control on the scale you appear to be saying exists. [Jon’s bold]"

I stand by the first sentence.  There's an inverse relationship between the size of a group and the chances of unanimity.  Not a mathematically precise relationship like an inverse square law, and there are groups where pretty much everyone professes the same beliefs, whatever doubts or disagreements they might keep to themselves.  But you'd written in the post to which I replied that "the real leaders of The Gang are many and United."  The larger the "many," the smaller the chances of "United."

I'm still unclear as to what you believe about the degree of central control.  I'll put it in question form:

Do you believe that there's a central group of schemers who draw up plans for world control?  If so, how many members do you think there are in that central group?

Ellen

And you look great standing by the first sentence I see what you are getting at, point taken.

First, I don’t know. I’ve never myself to my knowledge been anywhere near them or anyone who has gotten near them. I’ll give you some of my impressions and make some giuesses.

I think that GHW Bush’s “thousand points of [Luciferian] light are entities, not individuals. Sovereign states, intelligence agencies declared and otherwise, Corporations, secret societies and other leadership systems, media giants, etc.  I think that they have long thought of their project as reaching a critical mass upon achieving control of the top 1,000 leading organizations, in a sort of back-of-a-napkin estimate of when it can all be shut down, close the gates, turn on the AI social control systems, boot stomping face forever time.

One example of such an entity is the Ford Foundation. Ford presented himself very differently from what he was. Rand herself believed his act. But look at how his Foundation was “taken over” by leftists and has been increasingly leftist ever since. He wasn’t tricked and his son was not tricked, their fantastic wealth and control of Ford Motor Company was not filched from them, it’s  just they are nothing like what they presented. Henry, the whole family, Gang.

 

“Do you believe that there's a central group of schemers who draw up plans for world control?”

Yes. A small number of people at the very top who execute tactics and supervise those below them. They have done pretty well, so I believe their system of leadership must be quite systematic and meritocratic. Their Luciferian/satanic religion provides the project of world domination. Doing one’s part in The Great Project is a religious requirement.

 

“If so, how many members do you think there are in that central group?”

I don’t know if the top is committee or queen bee.

Very roughly, maybe it takes one “family” per point of light, and maybe there are 10 to 100 effective soldiers per family. That would make The Gang between ten and one hundred thousand people. Many Rockefellers live at John D’s big estate. Like 100 descended nuclear family units are living there right now. Killery has to be a secret Rockefeller. If she was any lower than that then she wouldn’t be perfectly and absolutely untouchable still at this late date. The Standard Oil bustup was not effective, that family exerts vast power over American energy and a great deal of banking.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jon,

Thank you for the above post.  That gives me a much better idea of the specifics of your views on "the Gang."

I'll answer somewhat out of order.

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I think that GHW Bush’s “thousand points of [Luciferian] light are entities, not individuals. Sovereign states, intelligence agencies declared and otherwise, Corporations, secret societies and other leadership systems, media giants, etc.  I think that they have long thought of their project as reaching a critical mass upon achieving control of the top 1,000 leading organizations, in a sort of back-of-a-napkin estimate of when it can all be shut down, close the gates, turn on the AI social control systems, boot stomping face forever time.

I think you're probably right about the "thousand points of light" as a "back-of-a-napkin estimate" of critical mass.

I also think that Trump's managing to get elected President of the United States threw the calculations and assumptions into uproar.  It was an election that shouldn't, that couldn't happen, so the Gang elites thought.  But it did happen, and they're in a tizzy as to how to proceed now.

 

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

One example of such an entity is the Ford Foundation. Ford presented himself very differently from what he was. Rand herself believed his act. But look at how his Foundation was “taken over” by leftists and has been increasingly leftist ever since. He wasn’t tricked and his son was not tricked, their fantastic wealth and control of Ford Motor Company was not filched from them, it’s  just they are nothing like what they presented. Henry, the whole fsmily.  Gang.

Thinking over my "Doesn't everyone know it?" has led me into memory-lane explorings of when/how I began to think that there were groups attempting to engineer world events.  A major suspicion arouser for me was a job I had for a year, late '70-late '71, working as secretary/research assistant on a study of foundations.  The job workplace was at the Russell Sage Foundation.  The Ford Foundation was much featured in the study.  I hardly remember any details of the report that resulted, but I remember my increasing feeling of unsavory stuff going on, and much being "understood" which wasn't said.

 

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

"Do you beli eve that there's a central group of schemers who draw up plans for world control? ”

Yes, a small number of people at the very top who execute tactics and supervise those below them. They have done pretty well, so I believe their system of leadership must be quite systematic and meritocratic. Their Luciferian/satanic religion provides the project of world domination. Doing one’s part in The Great Project is a religious requirement.

There, I'm agnostic.  I think that there are coteries and alliances, but I'm doubtful that there's a central core leadership.

That brings me to your statement:

"I’ve never myself to my knowledge been anywhere near them or anyone who has gotten near them."

I have been near persons who I think are among them, and not just in the United States, in Hungary and Vienna.  I think that the people I encountered in Europe aren't under the leadership of American chiefs and are rather disdainful of American elites.  I'm talking impressions, not something I know for fact.  Maybe I'll learn more later this summer on a forthcoming Vienna trip.

Ellen

 

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

Thank you for the above post.  That gives me a much better idea of the specifics of your views on "the Gang."

I'll answer somewhat out of order.

I think you're probably right about the "thousand points of light" as a "back-of-a-napkin estimate" of critical mass.

I also think that Trump's managing to get elected President of the United States threw the calculations and assumptions into uproar.  It was an election that shouldn't, that couldn't happen, so the Gang elites thought.  But it did happen, and they're in a tizzy as to how to proceed now.

 

Thinking over my "Doesn't everyone know it?" has led me into memory-lane explorings of when/how I began to think that there were groups attempting to engineer world events.  A major suspicion arouser for me was a job I had for a year, late '69-late '70, working as secretary/research assistant on a study of foundations.  The job workplace was at the Russell Sage Foundation.  The Ford Foundation was much featured in the study.  I hardly remember any details of the report that resulted, but I remember my increasing feeling of unsavory stuff going on, and much being "understood" which wasn't said.

 

There, I'm agnostic.  I think that there are coteries and alliances, but I'm doubtful that there's a central core leadership.

That brings me to your statement:

"I’ve never myself to my knowledge been anywhere near them or anyone who has gotten near them."

I have been near persons who I think are among them, and not just in the United States, in Hungary and Vienna.  I think that the people I encountered in Europe aren't under the leadership of American chiefs and are rather disdainful of American elites.  I'm talking impressions, not something I know for fact.  Maybe I'll learn more later this summer on a forthcoming Vienna trip.

Ellen

 

Not to my knowledge, except I have met GHW Bush on two occasions, shook hands, quick exchange, doesn’t count for purposes of our discussion. I have also worked for two high tech billionaires, with just my supervisor between me and the owner/billionaire. I do still believe they were not in any way involved. People I am sure are involved hated them, publically attacked and diminished them. One is Persian and Christian and still a serial entrepreneur. The other is a gay activist and philanthropist.

The first Bush meeting was at NH Senator Judd Gregg’s farm in New Hampshire. (Edit: Sorry, Gregg was a member of the NH Executive Council on that date, and I think he had announced his running for US Rep from NH. He was seated in the US House of Reps in Jan ‘81.) A couple hundred people attended, my family was invited. This was when Bush was running for the ‘80 nomination so I am about 12. HW’s helicopter landed and he shook hands and exchanged a few words with everyone in the hay field he landed in. The hay was tall, someone fell, they were fine and we laughed. I think my comment to him was how hard it was to walk in the standing hay. He said all the surrounding fields looked amazing coming down, the grasses blowing in the wind. Then he turns to my mother, they are shaking hands and talking. I notice a twiggy little stick is hitting him in the crotch. Someone else’s boot is on it, they don’t realize they are making it rock up and down and hit him in the crotch. He looks down at his crotch, sees the situation, looks back at her, then at me, then back at her and says “I wondered!” 

[Peter]

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

It takes two to tango, Peter, and there was no flame war until you started one when you said there were voices in my head. You like to pretend that is civil, honest discourse. You don’t appear to possess the discipline to stay on the plane of ideas and refrain from personal attacks. I will never sit down and take your personal attacks. You also don’t appear to possess the discipline to stop engaging me altogether. Without that shortcoming there could be no problem between us. The fundamental problem is the same for you and for Billy: As soon as you drop the stalker behavior, interactions with the would-be victim will immediately cease. But neither of you is willing to stop. 

Voices in your head? I don't remember saying that but it sounds like something I would say. Will you apologize for all the hurtful things you have said? And you think this is somehow a personal attack? Not just joking around or even Jerry Seinfeld / George Castanza argumentative, dialogue, or an attempt to be a barb but humorous? And for that you cuss, rant, rave, never forget, never forgive? I do not plan on avoiding you, because I do not wish to avoid anyone . . . but I expect civility from you. I have been on OL around ten years now, and though I have blocked a few people over the years, then re-followed them, or I have not read everything some things people have said. But I still like it here.

You present the first instance someone has turned this place into a bad place. Stop the name calling. Stop the curse words. Argue with reason with an occasional barb, and I won't try and psychologize you. But if you behave like this in your personal life you may regret it. If this does not work? I have expressed my opinion to Michael. Peter       

[Peter]

Why does "voices in your head" bother you so much? Just curious. 

Doctor Freud.

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Voices in your head? I don't remember saying that but it sounds like something I would say. Will you apologize for all the hurtful things you have said? And you think this is somehow a personal attack? Not just joking around or even Jerry Seinfeld / George Castanza argumentative, dialogue, or an attempt to be a barb but humorous? And for that you cuss, rant, rave, never forget, never forgive? I do not plan on avoiding you, because I do not wish to avoid anyone . . . but I expect civility from you. I have been on OL around ten years now, and though I have blocked a few people over the years, then re-followed them, or I have not read everything some things people have said. But I still like it here.

You present the first instance someone has turned this place into a bad place. Stop the name calling. Stop the curse words. Argue with reason with an occasional barb, and I won't try and psychologize you. But if you behave like this in your personal life you may regret it. If this does not work? I have expressed my opinion to Michael. Peter       

Stop the stalking.

[Jon Letendre]

A few weeks, months of this and they will be free and they and Trump will start working on peace. Probably a huge historic reception in Tehran in his second term.

(CNN)A former Iranian Department of Defense contractor has been executed for spying for the US government, reported IRNA, a state-run news outlet.

"Jalal Haji Zawar, a contractor of the Department of Defense was spying for the CIA and the US Government," IRNA said, citing a statement released by the Iranian armed forces' judiciary department. "He was identified by the Defense Forces and prosecuted by the Tehran military prosecutor."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/22/world/iran-executes-defense-contractor/index.html

[Brant Gaede]

Peter, enforced "civility" will kill this place. Civility like cleanlines is next to nothing. (The Miracle Worker)

It is up to you to keep Jon in his place vis-a-vis you, not Michael et al. When the owner steps in it's with some newcomers or the really bad like Victor Pross or when Philip Coats went generally toxic.

Your problem is you don't know how to handle Jon, expecting help in what is a personal endeavor.

I handle Jon by not handling him.

I handle you by writing this post (and such). I didn't ask Michael to write it.

If Jon were to call me names I'd be perplexed and amused. I'd think my way through the perplexedness while keeping the amused.

That's because people used to shoot at me with real bullets.

I admit words can be more powerful than bullets: "A truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." (William Blake)

Thank you for supporting OL. I hope to be able to too, soon.

--Brant

[Peter]

Civility indicates civilization. Is OL in the boondocks Brant? I will drop my support of OL, as of now.   

[Jon Letendre]

49 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Peter, enforced "civility" will kill this place. Civility like cleanlines is next to nothing. (The Miracle Worker)

It is up to you to keep Jon in his place vis-a-vis you, not Michael et al. When the owner steps in it's with some newcomers or the really bad like Victor Pross or when Philip Coats went generally toxic.

Your problem is you don't know how to handle Jon, expecting help in what is a personal endeavor.

I handle Jon by not handling him.

I handle you by writing this post (and such). I didn't ask Michael to write it.

If Jon were to call me names I'd be perplexed and amused. I'd think my way through the perplexedness while keeping the amused.

That's because people used to shoot at me with real bullets.

I admit words can be more powerful than bullets: "A truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." (William Blake)

Thank you for supporting OL. I hope to be able to too, soon.

--Brant

Why in the world would I call you names? If I did I’m sure after being perplexed you would ask me why, then you would stop doing the things I named. You wouldn’t go out of your way to do those things, you wouldn’t ask why I dislike them. I do not follow Peter around OL responding to his posts, he does do that to me. Peter explicitly rejects the solution of simply not engaging me. Only a stalker would hold out like that, as though engaging me is some special, important right he will fight to defend. It’s disturbing.

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Peter explicitly rejects the solution of simply not engaging me. Only a stalker would hold out like that, as though engaging me is some special, important right he will fight to defend. It’s disturbing.

I don't think that Peter is stalking you in particular, or anyone else.  He used to post in the same off-the-top fashion on the Atlantis lists - whatever came to his head. (A difference here is his posting streams of old Atlantis posts.  A couple people have thanked him for doing that.  I find the interruptions a nuisance to scroll past.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rather than get involved in kerfuffle details that escalate (which is what has happened every time I have tried to address this thing between Jon and Peter), let me offer a brief truth about human nature.

Scott Adams did a video (which is around here somewhere--if necessary, I will find it) where he talked about how to write jokes.

The very first thing he said was about 20 or 25 percent of humans (I don't recall the exact percentage) have no sense of humor. Scott is one of the world's most famous cartoonists for the funny papers (Dilbert), so I believe him when he talks about things like this. His very career and success demand that he have more than just an opinion on the matter, they demand he have an informed understanding.

So I imagine his conclusion comes, not from casual opinion, nor from running scientific experiments, but from a lot of reading about it and trying to get this or that to work to make people laugh over the years with those who have objected to the style of humor in Dilbert or who just don't get it. So he concluded that some people lack his kind of humor and nothing he can do will ever make them laugh.

Knowing what I've learned about neuroscience, modern psychology and the modularity of the brain, I agree with him. Just as some people are born short and others tall, or some born naturally relaxed as their default state and others born tense, or some born favoring the right brain and others favoring the left, etc., I agree that the areas of the brain that process humor can be extremely different in different people from birth. 

(Apropos, see The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist for one of the most fascinating inquiries into right brain-left brain I have uncovered so far. I mention this because his findings are that each side has a particular view of the world--a view that is substantially different than the other--and we experience oscillations between the two as a single process.)

I see the problem with Peter and Jon in this light. Peter likes to roll with good times, make quips, list the things that make him feel good, etc. That's the wave length he lives on, at least from what I perceive from his writing. Does that mean he is merely superficial? No. It does mean he likes the "live and let live" default way of being as he whistles a tune. That is his priority and not depth. That's what shows up automatically irrespective of the topic and it's the frame for everything he writes that follows.

With Jon, I rarely see any expression of humor that does not involve humiliating someone. (Rand was like that, too.) So he doesn't get Peter and attributes intentions to him that are simply not correct in cognitive terms, for example, taking Peter's quips literally, affirming that a quip is an attempt to evade or humiliate someone, etc. And he responds as if these quips were personal attacks, which they are not.

So Jon gets burned by what he perceives as hostility and responds accordingly. Peter gets burned by Jon's hostility. 

From what I see, Peter doesn't imagine that people like Jon exist (people without his kind of sense of humor, as in the Scott Adams observation) and Jon doesn't imagine that people like Peter exist (who use humor in a way he doesn't believe possible to be addressed to him without having ill intent). So Peter insists on Jon having Peter's sense of humor and gets really pissed when that doesn't work, and Jon insists on Peter having Jon's interpretation of humor and gets really pissed when that doesn't work. And both are certain they are right while the other is dead wrong.

In my view, both of these guys rock and I am sure they would be fine with each other, possibly friends, if they merely accepted each other as they exist. (Peter is happy-go-lucky and Jon is intense.) Both have good will and both want to make the world a better place. But until this issue of difference in understanding and using/reacting to humor gets resolved, I don't know how to fix this.

A very good understanding took place over the Aristotle wheel paradox. It became clear to everyone in the end that they literally did not see the same thing, or process what they saw in the same manner, as those who disagreed with them. It had nothing to do with good and evil, or stupid and smart, etc. The same kind of thing is operating here.

The point is, this whole hostility thing is bickering between good people. Peter is good people. Jon is good people. And there are bad guys out there doing bad things that need this hostility (from both) to be used against them.

I suggest we aim our guns at those people and not at each other.

Note, this has nothing to do with using civility as a rule. It is cognitively deeper on an identification level than that. Civility, in this case, is a result, not a cause. Correct understanding causes it. It does not cause correct understanding.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

I can’t express myself without cuss words, I’ve tried quitting them and I fucking can’t. It’s my expressional identity, that’s like a gender identity in that Peter has to accept it or he is a bigot and has no place at OL. He keeps targeting me and making me feel this an unsafe place for people like me.

[Ellen Stuttle]

13 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I can’t express myself without cuss words, I’ve tried quitting them and I fucking can’t. It’s my expressional identity, that’s like a gender identity in that Peter has to accept it or he is a bigot and has no place at OL. He keeps targeting me and making me feel this an unsafe place for people like me.

Jon,

I was typing a PS to my post about Peter's not stalking you (or anyone else) in particular when you wrote the above.

I was saying...

Added PS:  Please don't interpret my remark as support for Peter's whining about "civility."  Come on, he's an ex-military guy and 76 years old or thereabouts (he gave his graduating year from college as '65)?  He can't handle some cussing directed his way?

 

[anthony]

Is it "whining" to request one not be gratuitously insulted? I'm with Brant, I have little time for "civility", per se, which connotes forced good manners, turning discussion into dry, constrained, affairs, lacking honesty. Chosen good manners and simple respect are however, invaluable. Peter has been on the losing end of some undeserved poor behavior. Lets call it as it is. I suss Peter to be quite a shy fellow at heart and a gentleman.

[Jon Letendre]

The way I laugh at Peter’s humor, with bursts of cussing, I can not control that. I am different and he targets me because he can’t tolerate someone who laughs differently than he does. He won’t stop until he destroys me.  It is so sad that OL is becoming a place where Peter can attack me simply for being the way nature made me.

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Is it "whining" to request one not be gratuitously insulted? I'm with Brant, I have little time for "civility", per se, which connotes forced good manners, turning discussion into dry, constrained, affairs, lacking honesty. Chosen good manners and simple respect are however, invaluable. Peter has been on the losing end of some undeserved poor behavior. Lets call it as it is. I suss Peter to be quite a shy fellow at heart and a gentleman.

Go back to the looney bin.

[Jon Letendre]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Rather than get involved in kerfuffle details that escalate (which is what has happened every time I have tried to address this thing between Jon and Peter), let me offer a brief truth about human nature.

Scott Adams did a video (which is around here somewhere--if necessary, I will find it) where he talked about how to write jokes.

The very first thing he said was about 20 or 25 percent of humans (I don't recall the exact percentage) have no sense of humor. Scott is one of the world's most famous cartoonists for the funny papers (Dilbert), so I believe him when he talks about things like this. His very career and success demand that he have more than just an opinion on the matter, they demand he have an informed understanding.

So I imagine his conclusion comes, not from casual opinion, nor from running scientific experiments, but from a lot of reading about it and trying to get this or that to work to make people laugh over the years with those who have objected to the style of humor in Dilbert or who just don't get it. So he concluded that some people lack his kind of humor and nothing he can do will ever make them laugh.

Knowing what I've learned about neuroscience, modern psychology and the modularity of the brain, I agree with him. Just as some people are born short and others tall, or some born naturally relaxed as their default state and others born tense, or some born favoring the right brain and others favoring the left, etc., I agree that the areas of the brain that process humor can be extremely different in different people from birth. 

(Apropos, see The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist for one of the most fascinating inquiries into right brain-left brain I have uncovered so far. I mention this because his findings are that each side has a particular view of the world--a view that is substantially different than the other--and we experience oscillations between the two as a single process.)

I see the problem with Peter and Jon in this light. Peter likes to roll with good times, make quips, list the things that make him feel good, etc. That's the wave length he lives on, at least from what I perceive from his writing. Does that mean he is merely superficial? No. It does mean he likes the "live and let live" default way of being as he whistles a tune. That is his priority and not depth. That's what shows up automatically irrespective of the topic and it's the frame for everything he writes that follows.

With Jon, I rarely see any expression of humor that does not involve humiliating someone. (Rand was like that, too.) So he doesn't get Peter and attributes intentions to him that are simply not correct in cognitive terms, for example, taking Peter's quips literally, affirming that a quip is an attempt to evade or humiliate someone, etc. And he responds as if these quips were personal attacks, which they are not.

So Jon gets burned by what he perceives as hostility and responds accordingly. Peter gets burned by Jon's hostility. 

From what I see, Peter doesn't imagine that people like Jon exist (people without his kind of sense of humor, as in the Scott Adams observation) and Jon doesn't imagine that people like Peter exist (who use humor in a way he doesn't believe possible to be addressed to him without having ill intent). So Peter insists on Jon having Peter's sense of humor and gets really pissed when that doesn't work, and Jon insists on Peter having Jon's interpretation of humor and gets really pissed when that doesn't work. And both are certain they are right while the other is dead wrong.

In my view, both of these guys rock and I am sure they would be fine with each other, possibly friends, if they merely accepted each other as they exist. (Peter is happy-go-lucky and Jon is intense.) Both have good will and both want to make the world a better place. But until this issue of difference in understanding and using/reacting to humor gets resolved, I don't know how to fix this.

A very good understanding took place over the Aristotle wheel paradox. It became clear to everyone in the end that they literally did not see the same thing, or process what they saw in the same manner, as those who disagreed with them. It had nothing to do with good and evil, or stupid and smart, etc. The same kind of thing is operating here.

The point is, this whole hostility thing is bickering between good people. Peter is good people. Jon is good people. And there are bad guys out there doing bad things that need this hostility (from both) to be used against them.

I suggest we aim our guns at those people and not at each other.

Note, this has nothing to do with using civility as a rule. It is cognitively deeper on an identification level than that. Civility, in this case, is a result, not a cause. Correct understanding causes it. It does not cause correct understanding.

Michael

OMG, get a life!

[Jon Letendre]

Bugs Bunny, the famous, Oscar-winning cartoon rabbit, hosts his first weekly television series, along with all his fellow Warner Brothers cartoon stars, including Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, ...See full summary »

Stars:

 Mel Blanc, June Foray, Jim Backus  | See full cast & crew »

 

Reviews

12 user  | 1 critic

 

 

 

 

 

Popularity

4,625 ( 60)

View production, box office, & company info

 

ad feedback

Top-Rated Episodes

 

S3.E23

A Fractured Leghorn/High Note/Hot Cross Bunny

Bugs Bunny is a science research test subject for the switching of his brain with a chicken. He finds himself in front of an audience in a lab auditorium and decides to entertain them with ...

 

 9.0

 

 Rate

 

---

 

S2.E20

Watch My Line

The art of cartoon drawing is demonstrated by an animator, whom Bugs instructs to draw a line, which turns into different things.

 

 8.7

 

 Rate

 

---

 

S2.E21

What's Up Dog?

A second look at dogs, hosted by Bugs.

 

 8.6

 

 Rate

 

See more episodes »

See What the Original Karate Kid Is Watching

Check out what Ralph Macchio of "Cobra Kai" has on his Watchlist.

Watch now

 

Related News

• TV Academy Bestows Governors Award On Voice Actress June Foray 
  29 August 2013 | Deadline TV
• Win All 17 Pepe Le Pew Shorts on DVD 
  22 February 2012 | TVSeriesFinale
• Videolog DVD & Blu-ray News 10.27.2009 
  27 October 2009 | Starlog

See all related articles »

Around The Web

Powered by ZergNet

Create a list »

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

1960s TV Shows

a list of 40 titles 
created 2 weeks ago

 

izlediğim diziler

a list of 47 titles 
created 4 weeks ago

 

cartoons i've seen

a list of 27 titles 
created 1 month ago

 

Best Seen 1960-1969

a list of 25 titles 
created 24 Feb 2013

 

izlediğim diziler

a list of 47 titles 
created 06 Nov 2015

 

See all related lists »

How Much Have You Seen?

How many episodes of The Bugs Bunny Showhave you seen?

Related Items

 

Search for "The Bugs Bunny Show" on Amazon.com

Share this Rating

Title: The Bugs Bunny Show (1960–1975)

 8.6/10  

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

 Show HTML View more styles

User Polls

• 35 Oldest TV Series From the IMDb Top 250 TV
• Most Award Worthy Movie Voice Acting
• Cartoons 1950-1969
• IMDb Top 250 Animated TV Show
• Favorite TV Shows on the Air 50 Years Ago
• Classic Cartoon Theme Songs

See more polls »

 

Episodes

Seasons

---

 

Years

---

 

3   2   1  

 

1971   1962   1961   1960  

Top Rated TV #125 | See the Top Rated TV as rated by our users.

Photos

          

 See all 26 photos » 

Learn more

More Like This 

◄ Prev 6Next 6 ►

 

 

 

 

 

Add to Watchlist

Next »

The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour (1968–1978)

Animation | Comedy

  8.6/10 

Bugs Bunny and all his cartoon friends are stage performers entertaining audiences with 7 features per show, all of which are classic theatrical cartoons from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. ...  See full summary »

 

Stars: Mel Blanc, Jim Backus, Bea Benaderet

Edit

Cast

Series cast summary:
	Mel Blanc	...	Bugs Bunny / ... 20 episodes, 1960-1971
	June Foray	...	Granny / ... 7 episodes, 1960-1962

See full cast »

View production, box office, & company info

Edit

Storyline

Bugs Bunny, the famous, Oscar-winning cartoon rabbit, hosts his first weekly television series, along with all his fellow Warner Brothers cartoon stars, including Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, the Tasmanian Devil, Tweety Bird, Sylvester Cat, the Road Runner, Wile E. Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Foghorn Leghorn, and Speedy Gonzales. Each episode features three theatrical cartoons introduced by Bugs and/or the other characters, and often with a unifying idea, or theme. Many episodes feature Bugs as a lecturer on such subjects as cats, dogs, birds, and humans, and offering classic Warner Brothers cartoon footage to comically illustrate his points. Written by Kevin McCorry <mmccorry@nb.sympatico.ca>

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

---

Plot Keywords:

 rabbit | compilation | surrealism | merrie melodies compilation | famous opening theme | See All (23) »

---

Taglines:

 What's up, Doc? 

---

Genres:

 Animation | Comedy

---

Certificate:

 TV-G |  See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

 Add content advisory for parents »

Edit

Details

Country:

 USA

Language:

 English

Release Date:

 11 October 1960 (USA) See more »

Also Known As:

 Mein Name ist Hase See more »

Filming Locations:

 Warner Brothers Burbank Studios - 4000 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, California, USA

---

Company Credits

Production Co:

 American Broadcasting Company (ABC), Warner Bros. Television  See more »

Show more on IMDbPro »

---

Technical Specs

Runtime:

 25 min (52 episodes)

Sound Mix:

 Mono |  Stereo

Color:

 Black and White (1960-1962)|  Color (1962-1968) 

Aspect Ratio:

 1.33 : 1

See full technical specs »

Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

Words to the opening: "Overture, curtain , lights! / This is it. The night of nights. / No more rehearsing or nursing a part. / We know every part by heart! / Overture, curtain, lights! / This is it. We'll hit the heights! / And oh, what heights we'll hit! / On with the show, this is it! / Tonight what heights we'll hit! / On with the show, this is it!"  See more »

---

Alternate Versions

In the German version, the title music was replaced with a new track by Fred Strittmatter and Quinn Amper.  See more »

---

Connections

Referenced in Analyze This (1999) See more »

---

Soundtracks

The Bugs Bunny Overture (This Is It!) 
Written by Jerry Livingston, Mack David 
Performed by Mel Blanc 
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

What's uo Doc?

19 February 2018 | by OllieSuave-007 – See all my reviews

This is a great cartoon show full of Warner Brother's popular characters, including Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, and Yosemite Sam. 

Who would forget Bugs Bunny's classic "Eh, what's up doc?" phrase as he encounters his pals or opponents, the frenzyness and speech impediment of Daffy Duck, or the stuttering lines of Porky Pig? Each character is treated with unique flavor and they give each episode fun adventures and entertaining chemistry.

It is a cartoon series of all ages!

Grade A

---

0 of 0 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you? Yes No | Report this

Review this title | See all 12 user reviews »

[Jon Letendre]

One more?

Yosemite Sam Quotes

Oooooooooooooooooooo!

MAIN MENU

SKIP TO PRIMARY CONTENT

SKIP TO SECONDARY CONTENT

• HOME
• ABOUT SAM
• YOSEMITE SAM SAYINGS
• YOSEMITE SAM’S LEXICON
• YOSEMITE SAM CARTOONS
• BUGS BUNNY QUOTES

Yosemite Sam Sayings

“Ooooooooooooooooooooo!”
“Shut up shuttin’ up!”
“Come ta papa baby”
“Whoa camel!  Whoa!”
“Goodbye rabbit!”  
“Now drink up varmint!”
“Say yer prayers varmint!”
“Now ya varmint … dive!”
“Drop that sword varmint!”
“Oooooo!  I hate that rabbit!”
“Welcome to the house of Sam”
“When I say whoa! … I mean whoa!”
“Oooooo!  I’ll keelhaul you for this!”
“No good bush whackin’ barracuda”
“That’s what I get for trustin’ a rabbit”
“All right now ya wise guy … Dance!”
“Say yer prayers ya long eared galoot!”
“I’m a Hessian … without no aggression”
“Get down, ya long eared mountain goat”
“Ok rabbit … you forced me to use force”
“Now all-a-you skunks clear outta here!”
“Oooooo!  I’ll blast your head off for this!”
“Aha!  Now I gotcha … ya fur-bearin’ crittter!”
“I’m a-givin’ ya one second to draw a gun”
“Huh … missed again ya hammerhead halibut!”                         
“Ya darn dude … I’ll give you a taste of leather!”
“Now quit stallin’ and start roastin’!”
“Come back here you muley-headed maverick”
“You ornery fur-bearin’ rebel … you’ll pay for this!”
“Now, ya carrot-chewin’ coyote! Git a goin’!”
“Start walkin’ ya doggone long eared galoot”
“Now get that flea-bitten carcass off’n my real estate!”
“Stranger, you just yupped yourself into a hole in the head!”
“So long, sucker! Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …”   
“What’s up doc?  I ain’t no doc … I’m a pirate, sea goin’ Sam”
“Blast your scuppers ya barnacle bitten land lubber”
“Say your prayers varmint … dead rabbits tell no tales”
“Oooo ya long eared, fur bearin’ flat-footed varmint!”
“Blast his scuppers … I’ll slice his liver out for this!”
“Shut off that judybox! … I can’t hear myself a-speechin’ ”
“Oooo … that gastronomic, epicure, culinary crepe suzette … I hate him!” 
“Aha!  There ya are ya buck-toothed barnacle … say yer prayers”
“All right all right don’t rush me, I’m-a-thinkin’ … and my head hurts”
“Nobody ‘ill vote for a flattened out rabbit skin, a-huh huh … I always say”
“Who am I?  I’m Sam Von Schmamm the Hessian … that’s who I am”
“I’m a-sailin’ with the tide … or my name ain’t Shanghai Sam … and it is”
“There’s your piana rabbit … now let’s see ya play it”
“Ya doggone idgit galoot … you’ll blow the ship to smithereenies!”
“I’m the hootinst, tootinist, shootinist bobtail wildcat in the west!”
“Oooo … get me a a mouth piece … I wanna a hapus corpeas!”
“Great horny toadies!  I musta dug clean through to Chiney!”
“Back, back, back … down ya shark livered varmint!”
“I smells carrots a-cookin’ … and where there’s carrots, there’s rabbits”
“Oooo … that dirty bilge rat has be-fouled my good name”
“The varmint got me … I’m-a-headin’… for the last round up”
“Great horny toads … a trespasser gettin’ footie prints all over my desert”
“I sees ya … come on out-a-there ya long eared blue coat”
“Oooo, I’d like to lay my hands on the lily-livered swab is writ that forgery”
“10 dollars! Why it’s gettin’ so a man can’t earn a dishonest livin’ no more”
“5:15 … I’ll take care of you later, I gotta catch a train … and rob it!”
“Haw haw haw haw … and keep reachin’ for the ceiling, till ya reach it!”
“Now be there any livin’ varmint is aims to try to tame me? … Well be there?”
“The first dang Yankee that steps out of that dugout, gets his head blasted off!”
“Get a-goin’ … or I’ll blow your carcass right out from under yer hat!”
“Read faster rabbit … read faster or I’ll blast your head off!”
“No more gentleman’s stuff, from now on you fights my way … dirty!”
“Aha!  There ya are ya buck-toothed barnacle … say your prayers”
“Avast there!  Come back here … you barnacle-bitten swab”
“I’m a-sailin’ with the tide, or my name ain’t Shanghai Sam … and it is”
“Any one-a-you lily-livered, bow-legged varmints care to slap leather with me?”
“Cut it out!  Now drink yer juice before I blows the fur off’n yer hide!” 
“Ya double-crossers!  I’m a-comin’ back, and I ain’t comin back to play marbles!”
“Blast your ornery hide, if ya does that just once more … I ain’t a-going after it”
“I’m a-comin’ over the wall after ya … and I’m a-comin’ in a-shootin’!”
“I paid my four bits to see the high divin’ act … and I’m-a gonna see the high diving act!”
“Be you the mean hombre’ that’s a-hankerin’ for a heap a trouble stranga! … well be ya?”
“Oooo!  Ya long eared, fur bearin’, flat-footed varmint … say yer prayers ya critter!”
“Ya better say your prayers, ya flea-bitten varmint … I’m-a-gonna blow ya to smithereenies!”
“Blast your scuppers ya barnacle bitten landlubber … come down here and fight like a man!”
“Now where’s that swab a-hidin’ at … I’ll blast the fur clean off a-his flea-bitten hide!”
“The first one is trys to get outta here to warn that rabbit … gets his hide blown off!”
“I’m no doc, ya flea-bitten varmint … I’m Riff-Raff Sam … the riffiest riff that ever riffed a raff!”
“Ya double crossin’ rabbit, ya cut down your chances … I’m only goin’ count 2, and then blast ya!”
“Ya crazy idgit bedraggled dragon … I warned ya about lettin’ your fire get low, now ya caught cold”
“That’s right, Yosemite Sam … The roughest, toughest, hombre that ever locked horns with a rabbit”
“What’s up?  Why you ornery, fur-bearin’ critter … this here’s one of them there train robbery hold ups”
“Yah mule!  Yah yah yah!!!  Whoa camel, whoa, whoa, whoa camel, whoa, ah ha ha come on whoa …”
“Yeah, Yosemite Sam … The roughest, toughest, he-man stuffest hombre’ is ever crossed the Rio Grande”
“Yeah, Chilikoot Sam … The roughest, toughest, rootinest, shootinest claim-jumper that ever jumped a claim”
“Oooo!  Belay there you long eared galoot, get aloft and furl the tatter-sole top gallants before I keel-hauls ya!”
“Great horny toads, I’m up North! … Gotta burn my boots, they touched Yankee soil”
“Ok ya fur-bearin’ carpet-bagger … I’m-a-givin’ ya one second to come out or I’ll blow ya out!  Times up!”
“I’m Yosemite Sam … The meanest, toughest, rip-roarin-est, Edward Everett Horton-est hombre whatever packed a six shooter!”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I can’t express myself without cuss words, I’ve tried quitting them and I fucking can’t. It’s my expressional identity, that’s like a gender identity in that Peter has to accept it or he is a bigot and has no place at OL. He keeps targeting me and making me feel this an unsafe place for people like me.

Jon,

I can't figure out if this is serious.

It's framed so much like the way social justice warriors speak, it's off with what you've written before.

40 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

OMG, get a life!

Are you OK?

That's a serious question, not a quip.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

12 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I don't think that Peter is stalking you in particular, or anyone else.  He used to post in the same off-the-top fashion on the Atlantis lists - whatever came to his head. (A difference here is his posting streams of old Atlantis posts.  A couple people have thanked him for doing that.  I find the interruptions a nuisance to scroll past.)

Ellen

He has been stalking me the last few weeks. Six or eight times by recollection, I would post in a thread that was untouched for a week, a month, and he plops pages of text over them within minutes. Perhaps he considers that putting his stupid shit where eyes will be, on Jon’s stuff, simply to get eyes on his shit. Maybe.

He is suffering a stalker episode.

Disengaging from me should be easy.

He has explicitly committed  himself to never doing that.

I’m open to other names for that, but it is not healthy. Anyone who cared about Peter would be advising him to just walk away from me and never look back, simple. But they, and he, want something else. Not peace or harmony. Me off OL.

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

I can't figure out if this is serious.

It's framed so much like the way social justice warriors speak, it's off with what you've written before.

Are you OK?

That's a serious question, not a quip.

Michael

Of course I am serious, and quite OK.

Didnt you laugh at “get a life.” That was meant as warm humor. Lol. Are you ok? What’s up, doc?