jawa.mee.nu

July 11, 2006

Everything You (didn't) Want To Know About Vinnie

I've been toying with the idea of doing an "about me" page.

Thankfully, it's been done for me.

Except, my name isn't Fred, I prefer single malt Scotch over Bourbon, and I'm still sucking oxygen.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:22 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

July 08, 2006

Conversations With My Beer Glass: A Conceptualized Tribute To Jeff Goldstein II

Beer glass: Dude, that was harsh.

Me: Shutup

Beer glass: But I was just going to say...

Me: Look, shut yer fluid hole, or I'll post the name of your manufacturer all over the interwebs, violating your right to hold my Golden Elixir.

Beer glass: ...

Me: ...

Beer glass: I know my RIGHTS!!!

Me: You forfeited those rights when I paid cold hard cash to get you.

Beer glass: Joke's on you, twerp, anything you want to know about me is available FREE!

Me: Damn...just...damn.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Conversations With My Beer Glass: A Conceptualized Tribute To Jeff Goldstein

Beer glass: So, why the long face?

Me: Well, I miss the little guy.

Beer glass: You're upset over a fictional armadillo?

Me: That, and I wish I could help out.

Beer glass: Well, you did help out posing as Deb Frisch's Pooter in Ace's comments. However, what you absolutely should not do, not at all, is do a Whois lookup for debfrisch.com, notice the fake phone number there, and report it to the Domain Name Registrar.

Me: ...

Beer glass: ...

Me: You could use a refill.

later that day

Beer glass: Dude, wake up, he's back.

Me: Shanks for the headsh up.

Posted by: Vinnie at 04:46 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

1 so let me see if I have this right: she gets death threats, and resigns from her job due to her misconduct on another bloggers sites with comments, and you're still pushing for further punishment by having her domain name revoked? I think she took her licks, no? I think it's the job of the left to act rabid, and push the envelope a mile further than needed.

I'll tell you right now, I don't put my phone number in my whois contact either -- seeing as registrars are already charging to keep information anonymous, where people have to send mail to the registrar to forward to the owner, I have my mailing address there it should be sufficient.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 05:30 PM (voZp6)

2 What death threat did she receive? Have you seen one? I haven't.

When I get a death threat, I post it.

And guess what? Filing a fake phone number with a DNR is a violation of their TOS. In other words, she broke an agreement with Godaddy to provide truthful information.

If she's willing to lie to Godaddy, why should I believe she's gotten death threats? Or, for that matter, that she even resigned? She offers not one shred of proof of either.

You do what you want with your domain name, dave. If you've left it out, and it's acceptable to the company, so what? She didn't leave hers out, she entered a totally fake one.

And given what she said about a guy's two year old child, there aren't enough licks to be taken for shit like that.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 06:02 PM (/qy9A)

3 I think she deserves to heve the book thrown at her. Posting thinly veiled threats / suggestions of violence against someone's child is beyond mere "misconduct." Her comments about Goldstein's race & Bainbridge's sexual preferences should be "misconduct" enough to preclude her from ever getting another position in academia. Repeated veiled threats of violence, especially against a child, are a whole other level of no-no. There's simply no place for that level of discourse. I hope the public will be relentless in making sure this lunatic never darkens the door of another lecture hall.

Posted by: The All Seeing Eye at July 08, 2006 06:13 PM (fZeeX)

4 So there I was tapping my way along and I got to this part......

"If you are sight impaired and would like help using this page please call (480) 505-8899."

I realize it doesn't contain the word blind but that's likely more due to the fact the words that mean what they mean are being swapped out for the PC pukes. Even the clawed little friend of Jeff's is in a ball over this one.

I'm with Vinnie on this issue. Anyone who threatens crap the way this thing has/is/does, needs to get bitchslapped on both sides and dropkicked from the sphere. No three hail Mary's-No pass go collect $200-No chance to spur on some other sick fuck that would DO the deeds, that she has wished upon him.

Posted by: forest hunter at July 08, 2006 06:24 PM (TjUVb)

5 Vinnie:
If you had placed a link to the comments she made at Jeff's site in your story, I may have got the context -- I went to her site following your whois. Her explanation is she made some inflammatory comments etc. which obviously is maximum downplay.

I guess 000-000-0000 could be considered a fake phone number, however seeing as even Godaddy acknowledges that registrar records are being abused by spammers (with their image ID script) I don't blame anyone who doesn't fill in their complete information, especially as for a couple of dollars in their pocket they'll willingly hide all of your information.

I guess I am a liar too, because I claim my number is 000-000-0000? wrong - I just don't want my information available to anyone to call me.

The fact that someone decided to look up her record to get her address/phone number in the first place proves how sound that decision was on her part, otherwise her # would be all over conservative websites with the usual "call to give your opinion" mantra.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 07:31 PM (voZp6)

6 No, you're not only a liar, you're a cheapskate. Fork over the extra bucks to keep your info hidden. You agreed to a Terms of Service with a company. They're keeping up their end of the bargain while you shirk yours.

If you don't want your private info accessible to the public, use the tools available to make it so. If it costs you extra, so be it. If you're unwilling to pay, you put yourself out on that limb, not anyone else.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 08:18 PM (/qy9A)

7 You sound like the sort of corporate lickspittle marketers love -- calling me a "cheapskate" and a liar for not wanting to publish my phone number, while keeping my mailing address public, guess what genius? that isn't a service they offer! I wonder if you would publish such statements against my character if you were required to display your address and phone number, just for the "privilege" of owning a domain name? evidently not -- you're posting anonymously through a service that likewise has no requirements to publish all of your info, on a bloggers site who values his privacy for all the right reasons -- irony.

RFC 954 was one of the first specifications for the WHOIS service, wrote in 1985, which at the time SMTP servers accepted Email from anyone, to anyone -- until mass marketers and spammers abused the service. now WHOIS is coming under the same assault, whois records are having to be placed behind anti-harvest scripts to stop spammers from taking information to be placed in their marketing databases, likewise WHOIS records are being used by people in the know to publish their "enemies" information all over the internet, which wasn't the original spirit, nor intent.

Interestingly when a newspaper publishes a suggestion of using a telephone book to look up a conservatives phone number to use it for the purpose of harrassment authors here (rightly) see it as being outrageous:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/179846.php
I guess it's not too outrageous if they had suggested using his WHOIS address instead of the Yellow Pages right? after all it's in the terms of service? it should be there for all to see? people should be able to use it for any purpose they wish?

I find the selective outrage of access to private information, published publically to be amusing. I guess it matters which side of the fence you're on.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 08:58 PM (voZp6)

8 It's about choices, "genius." You make the choice, you take a risk.

Yeah, I've made the choice to remain anonymous ever since I started blogging, every step of the way, choosing venues where I didn't have to worry about deranged people like Frisch and the "i will cut ur neck" emailer from Egypt.

And take the strawman about the newspaper editors out into the backyard and burn it. Nowhere did I suggest that anyone contact Frisch herself. I advocated doing what Godaddy asks for, reporting false information. It's right there at the bottom of the page. A link to report false or incorrect information.

This is the outstanding quote of the day:

"I find the selective outrage of access to private information, published publically to be amusing. I guess it matters which side of the fence you're on."

If it's published publically, it ain't private information.

Now, go ahead and continue to defend a woman who quite starkly reveled in the thought of a two year old's death.

Let's see what side you're on.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 09:23 PM (/qy9A)

9 dave
How can you defend her for any reason? After what she has done why aren't you after her instead of vinnie for doing what is right?

Posted by: Richard at July 08, 2006 09:39 PM (KNYEg)

10 So, lemme get this strait, Dave, you won't put information you can get from the phonebook in your domain name registration? If it's breaking the rules, it's breaking the rules.

Lord God, the next thing you know these right-wingers will have some sort of mapping program where your can get a map of the whole Earth...say from a search company, like Google...

Posted by: John at July 08, 2006 09:40 PM (bbqag)

11 The universities need a thorough house-cleaning. Tenure is another full-employment plan of the socialists. These psycho snipers like Frisch should be fired.

Posted by: Veritas Regina at July 08, 2006 09:46 PM (PC/QV)

12 What you advocate is the revoking of her domain name, because you feel it is an ample angle to harrass her -- otherwise you would not suggest people do it, nor point it out.

I'm not surprised by you labeled the argument as a "strawman" because what you have done is the equivalent -- suggesting using her lack of valid phone number on her domain record to have her domain name revoked, and thus cause her suffering.

If you wish to talk about "Strawman" it would be in the argument of some self-righteous a-hole who randomly suggests "enforcing" corporations terms of services to harrass people -- the fact people are using the service to look up the name and address and splash it all over the place in their arguments is not why the service exists.

I have a right not to have my phone number used by marketers, registrars seem to be doing a piss poor job of stopping them harvesting it. It's amazing that someone would think it's a good idea to hand corporations all their data, when it's obvious they can neither protect it, or stop selling it.

My argument isn't about this freaking moonbat, my argument is about using whois information to harrass someone, something that now seems rather hypocritical since they published the story about a newpaper suggesting someone uses a telephone book to harrass a conservative -- I guess it's ok to use a whois record to do the same right? just not a telephone book with the same info?

Jeez, I guess it's a bit too much to ask for some consistency, I now return you to your next installment of "how it's right to do it, if a Lefty is a target"

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 09:53 PM (voZp6)

13 davec
What part of keeping an agreement do you not understand?

Posted by: Richard at July 08, 2006 09:57 PM (KNYEg)

14 Domain name revocation = fantasizing about infaticide, I guess?

Once again, you're a liar, I did not look up the information to "splash it all over the place." Which, of course, is another strawman, since anything you need to know about Frisch is already out there.

You seem to be engaging in the time-honored practice of divining intent through a computer screen. Which, of course, is another strawman, since anything you need to know about Frisch is already out there.

I've got bad news for you bub, your domain registrar is not the Federal Government. You don't have a RIGHT not to have your info there if you agreed to their terms of service.

Do you have a right to yell fire in a theatre? Do you have a right to go into a restaurant sans shirt and shoes?

I find it hilarious that you keep referring to a post on this blog that I didn't either write, comment on, or refer to in any way. So yeah, your strawman is getting pretty hot right now. Bluto wrote the post about the newspaper editors and the phonebook. Or do you not see the "posted by" at the bottom of every entry.

So much for the hypocrite argument.

Now, keep defending a woman who revels in the thought of the death of a two year old.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 10:10 PM (/qy9A)

15 Let me sum that up so others don't waste 30 seconds of their life:

"strawman, strawman, strawman, Federal Government, fire crowded theater. it's the same but different, defend the bad guy"

So why did you run to the registrar? what particular information were you attempting to retrieve, motive?

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 10:17 PM (voZp6)

16 davec
Maybe like to see if there is a MO (like another liberal maggot professor Ward Churchill) shooting off her mouth?

Posted by: Richard at July 08, 2006 10:22 PM (KNYEg)

17 Richard:
I guess that's great, as long as you do nothing with the information you see?

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 10:24 PM (voZp6)

18 davec
So when we see something wrong we just hide ours heads in the sand?

Posted by: Richard at July 08, 2006 10:26 PM (KNYEg)

19 Reporting falsifications to a blog host administrator simply does not rise to the level of revealing a person's home address, much less a death threat.

Period. No further elaborations are necessary to settle that issue.

Notifying a person's employer of obnoxious behavior is not very nice, but then maybe what the person had done (as in this case) deserved reporting, especially since it included threats of crimes.

There is no right of anonymity (not even, especially not even, in the bizarro liberal universe), at best anonymity is a prudential convenience subject to common sense limits.

Posted by: D. Ox at July 08, 2006 10:28 PM (gr1wo)

20 depends if it's selectively enforced by a motive, e.g would you report the same missing phone number if Pixy Misa had not placed it on his mu.nu whois record? or just the people that piss you off?

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 10:29 PM (voZp6)

21 davec
That wasn't the answer to the question. Do we hide our heads in the sand when we see something wrong?

Posted by: Richard at July 08, 2006 10:32 PM (KNYEg)

22 p.s.

Neither do I see why anyone should get upset about referring lunatics to the phone book. C'mon guys, can't we all get along?

Dave, you obviously have some common sense. If us right-wingers are especially shocked by the Frish it's because we are all too used to the spirit behind her attacks...

Posted by: D. Ox at July 08, 2006 10:33 PM (gr1wo)

23 no, it's not the answer you were looking for. Unless if you spot a crime, you get online and encourage others to call the police. In this case a simple Email to the registrar was all that was required to ask godaddy to enforce their TOS, but I guess "mob rule" by numbers is a better option, to ensure thy will is carried out.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 10:36 PM (voZp6)

24 It's none of your business what I was doing, now is it?

What are you trying to do, invade my privacy?

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 10:39 PM (/qy9A)

25 I've had to deal with selective perception many times in the past, but I dealt with witnesses who tried to recollect a few seconds of an event, usually when they were scared senseless.

davec, you have problems reading and remembering simple paragraphs that you can refer to time after time.

"Strawman, strawman, etc." is not the summary.

What part of a service agreement, which is a contract, don't you understand? That's the "Yes, I Agree" box you click on in case you're confused. That's the introduction, presentation, summary and closing argument.

Posted by: sig94 at July 08, 2006 10:40 PM (BnMdL)

26 davec
Closer, but still not answering the question.

Keep trying you may get it yet...

Posted by: Richard at July 08, 2006 10:41 PM (KNYEg)

27 I've had to deal with selective perception many times in the past, but I dealt with witnesses who tried to recollect a few seconds of an event, usually when they were scared senseless.

davec, you have problems reading and remembering simple paragraphs that you can refer to time after time.

"Strawman, strawman, etc." is not the summary.

What part of a service agreement, which is a contract, don't you understand? That's the "Yes, I Agree" box you click on in case you're confused.

That's the introduction, presentation, summary and closing argument.

Posted by: Commodore Clue at July 08, 2006 10:42 PM (BnMdL)

28 D. Ox:
Actually, if the post had not alluded to using complaints to revoke a domain name, I would have been on board, the issue looks more like something to be handled by law enforcement, than the blogosphere. The comments that the person concerned had made about 7/7 and U.S troops were pretty much on the same dispicable lines -- and look like someone craving attention, which thanks to all of this she has plenty of.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 10:43 PM (voZp6)

29 No Vinnie, my concern is for that of Godaddy Inc's Terms Of Service you keep harping on about, seeing as you've become a good Corporate TOS enforcer, I wanted to ensure you hadn't broken the TOS of use of the WHOIS service:

$whois -h whois.godaddy.com godaddy.com
The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database,
while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is"
with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This
information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you
in obtaining information about domain name registration records.
Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written
permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry,
you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular,
you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible,
dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any
purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and
and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree
not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic
processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose,
including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes.

We should all take this example, to ensure that Corporations terms of service are not selectively enforced.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 10:48 PM (voZp6)

30 Well gee, dave, I haven't violated that, now have I?

Divination of intent through a computer screen. Still impossible after all these years.

Now start responding to the other commenters, or face the axe.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 10:59 PM (/qy9A)

31 Axe me, I could care less.
I have been on the receiving end of abuse of the WHOIS system, by some local leftwing reporter who I criticized by Email to their editor. Shortly after I started receiving prank calls around 2-3AM, the whois system is not there to be used to settle a vendetta, and it's because of people like you I removed my phone number in the first place.

Posted by: davec at July 08, 2006 11:19 PM (voZp6)

32 Well, that's interesting dave. I didn't know that one could abuse the WHOIS system by receiving an email.

Or did you make the choice and take the risk of including your URL in said email?

And it's because of people like you that I chose to pursue avenues in which I could keep my family free from harm.

However, you, like Deb, chose to pursue another path.

And you, like Deb, are trying to paint yourself as the victim of others, when the fact is, you were victimized by a lack of common sense.

What we here in teh flyovuhr cuhntry call "street smarts."

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 08, 2006 11:59 PM (/qy9A)

33 I think what's getting obscured here is the fact that we are talking about one person's behavior, and the fact that it's completely unacceptable. The whole "fire in a crowded theater" argument aside, one of the realities of life is that there are consequences to actions. Sometimes they're positive - you put a quarter in a machine and turn the handle, you get a gumball. Sometimes they are negative - you make inappropriate comments about the molestation and murder of a toddler, and you are taken to task. People complain to the University you work for, and begin to call you on your other issues. Addressing her comments via a letter to her boss and noting TOS violations are certainly better than death threats - maybe grimmer reactions than some might like, but fair game.

The TOS are what they are. She made a choice, and whether or not it's an understandable one, if she's held accountable for violating them, SHE's the one who did it. Vinnie isn't responsible for her actions, SHE is.

This is the thing that drives me the most nuts about liberals - thinking everything that happens to them is someone's fault other than their own.

Posted by: Pam at July 09, 2006 12:07 AM (s1ho9)

34 I do believe I said prank call, Vinnie e.g by whois'ing my domain I used to send the Email.
I am sure however you believe it's acceptable behavior to whois someone's domain and prank phone people at all times of the night, especially if that person has pissed you off with their opinion.

Having been on the receiving end of some leftwing douchebag using the whois system to prank call me, I already know what it's like, it's for the same reason I am completely disgusted someone would use it to futher their agenda, no matter how vile the target might be -- after all my crime was sticking up for the troops, but the end justifies the means, no?

Posted by: davec at July 09, 2006 12:19 AM (voZp6)

35 davec - you are actually sticking up for this piece of crap???

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/a_new_low.html

http://www.debfrisch.com/

Right or left, this bitch is about as psychotic as a person can get.

Posted by: John Ryan's last brain cell at July 09, 2006 12:38 AM (2BOvC)

36 Actually John, if you reread you would see that I disagree with using the WHOIS system to broadcast Addresses and Phone numbers of people you don't like, in order to assure they will be harassed. I don't care who the intended target is.

Publishing information to a registrar to keep your domain name in good standing should not be a contract to accept harrassment because the information is freely available to anyone with a browser, no more than the use of a return address label means it's acceptable for someone to mail you a dogturd because they dislike you.

Posted by: davec at July 09, 2006 12:57 AM (voZp6)

37 No, dave, you're pulling out the Interwebs Crystal Ball to divine my intentions.

Which you know nothing about.

My intention is not to publish someone's info all over the world. That's all you need to know.

Once again, despite repeated attemps to show you the pile of crap in front of you, you insist on stepping on it.

Never have I advocated contacting Frisch using her WHOIS info. I merely advocate letting her DNR know that she's lying to them, as they ask for with the link they provide to report inaccuracies or falsities.

If you don't want to publish your information to a Domain Registrar, don't sign up with a Domain Registrar that will publish your information.

Do a WHOIS on bamapachyderm.com, for example. She's a woman who made a choice to pay a company for the privilege of having a domain name that wouldn't publish her private info.

You seem to not understand that what you consider private isn't private when you reveal it to a party whose policy is to provide your private info to anyone searching for it.

And you take a risk with that return address label, as well.

What part of choice and risk do you not understand?

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 09, 2006 01:36 AM (/qy9A)

38 Oh, and as far as your response to John Ryan's last brain cell, let's take it from the top:

"so let me see if I have this right: she gets death threats, and resigns from her job due to her misconduct on another bloggers sites with comments, and you're still pushing for further punishment by having her domain name revoked? I think she took her licks, no?"

Nah, you're not defending the POS, no way.

Oh, you can blame it on me, daveperpetualvictim, because I didn't provide the proper links, but it's not my fault your a lazy ass. Or, you've lied again, since All Seeing Eye posted all the links you needed to read a couple of posts down.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 09, 2006 01:44 AM (/qy9A)

39 Look at these fricken moonbats:

Hey folks, Deb is indeed one @#$%ed up person. But let's keep it as civil as we can.
I removed Deb's address from the posts because she emailed other bloggers and asked them to ask me to remove it. Childish attempt but still I followed through on her request.
Yes, anyone can get her information as proven by some of you. But, as someone who's had his family threatened on his blog, I decided to honor her request.
Posted by: Blackfive | Jul 8, 2006 2:19:24 PM

"Uh, Bruce? 555-1212 is the number for Information, not Dr. Deb. A little perspective, if you please."
Thank you, Pablo. And I see Black Five has removed her *address*, which was posted in the same comment.
Do we really need to behave like Kos Kidz? Leave law enforcement to the police and inappropriate threats and rudeness to the left side of the web.
Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein | Jul 8, 2006 4:54:50 PM

It's pretty funny to be talking about "risk" and "choices" while exposing other people's information on one hand, and soiling your pants about phantom Egyptian "beheaders" and "scary" liberal professors with the other, Blackfive see's the risk, you keep defending it.

I know when I read someone's site that pisses me off, I instantly rush to their registrar -- oh wait, no I don't.

I have said, why post this information public: Why not use the tools the registrar gave you to report it? Why ask more people to report it? if it is such a grave breach of the Terms of Service, they will remove it -- without needing lots of people reporting it.

I guess for the same reason people couldn't resist posting her address, and all the info they could dig up on her in the comments on blackfive, until Mat "moonbat" Blackfive removed it? I guess all the talk about "registrar tools" and "terms of service" are just that.

Posted by: davec at July 09, 2006 02:10 AM (voZp6)

40 Rusty tracked down that emailer from Egypt, dave, he didn't just threaten me.

I thought you read this blog regularly, he threatened all of the people on the Contact Page (prior to Rusty's recent addition.)

Can't see the forest for the trees, can we?

In case you are unawares, the DNR can't remove the offender without someone reporting the offense.

Once again, you pull out the crystal Interwebs ball and divine my actions based on your readings therein.

Where have I posted her info? Am I now Blackfive?

Posted by: Vinnie's Beer Glass at July 09, 2006 02:45 AM (/qy9A)

41 Oh, and I didn't "read someone's site that pissed me off" and go running to their registrar.

I read words by a woman who revels in thought of the death of a toddler.

A woman you insist on defending.

I haven't posted anything public, dave, keep dreaming.

Now, answer Beth's questions. You won't like Beth when she's angry

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 09, 2006 02:58 AM (/qy9A)

42 The "tool" I was talking about is on the very same page you posted (which leads to the WHOIS record)

"report Invalid whois" which takes you to the following:
https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/registrar/whois_report_invalid.asp

It is obviously the place to report inaccurate information.

I was talking about the same link you posted, at Blackfive he removed it, because of concerns with her Address being contained in it. I obviously never said you were "Blackfive" or "Bluto" or anyone else I compared the responses with.

Posted by: davec at July 09, 2006 03:03 AM (voZp6)

43 Finally, and this is your last word, dave, on any post I do on the Jawa Report.

I didn't "soil my pants" over that email.

Because, unlike you, dumbass, I have made sure I'm not traceable through the internets. I made the choice not to take that risk on behalf of my wife and kids.

And if that fails, davec, I've also accepted that risk and made the choice to exercise my 2nd Amendment right.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 09, 2006 03:06 AM (/qy9A)

44 It's not her address, dave, she is, by her own admission, in Eugene Oregon.

Have you even bothered to read the whole story, starting from her comments on Protein Wisdom?

The address in the WHOIS is in Arizona.

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at July 09, 2006 03:13 AM (/qy9A)

45 The forest is heard and not seen. But only if you trust the senses you were born with and not the trees you've planted and are now surrounded by, Davec.

Posted by: forest hunter at July 09, 2006 07:05 AM (TjUVb)

46 I dunno- Is it just me or does the left play by other rules? If I had said that, I would have been drummed to re-education camp i.e., "Sensitivity Training" like Ozzie Guillen. Now when some moonbat opens her frisch-hole she doesn't have to go through the "training", why is that?

Could it be that this training is just code for lib-speak?

Posted by: Lowly Knave at July 09, 2006 09:36 AM (SyHc/)

47 Did I ever tell you about how sometimes I sleep with liberal girls and sneak out of their shitty studio apartments and never give them my phone number?

I get 10 points for each of them. 20 if she's a feminist. My current score is 620. what's yours?

Posted by: dan l at July 09, 2006 02:36 PM (vstyf)

48 Feel free to post my number.

I prefer to date psychotic lesbians as they usually have a full liquor cabinet and plenty of blow.

Posted by: The Ugly American at July 19, 2006 11:45 PM (ORJ0X)

49 ME!ME!ME! OOO!OOO! Pick me!

I have a question....
Shouldn't davec (is that pronounced d-long *a*-v-ick?) be talking his gripe with whois or whatever?

Methinks HE is the one with ulterior motives here.

TUA, call me

Posted by: SondraK at July 20, 2006 12:05 AM (PFaz2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 07, 2006

Professional Mistress: Not Good Job

...or so say the Japanese. Who knew there were websites to select your mistress, get a free test drive, and then sign a contract for fees and services?

Hikawa enrolled in an online matchmaking service where women upload their profile and photos for free and the men pay an annual fee running into several hundred thousand yen. For that sum, men can choose the registered women they fancy and are permitted to take them on a date on the premise that if they enjoy each other's company, they will enter a contract for the woman to become a mistress.
"On the day after I registered, I was introduced to two guys and I picked the one most likely to have multiple mistresses. That way, he'd probably have more money around I could also get away with meeting him less but still getting paid," the shrewd 26-year-old credit card company worker tells Spa! "Before you agree to sign a contract, there's a tryout romp. I used every technique I'd ever learned with every other guy I'd slept with, put all my effort into the session and really tried to sell myself. I refused to be passive, jumping on top and spending at least 10 minutes performing xxxxxxxx."

So far, so good. High pay for difficult work. The downside, heavily edited for your safety:

"He bought me presents like saucy lingerie and even an xxxx xxxxx. I was more like his xxxxxxx than a lover. One time during xxx, he suddenly xxxxxx his xxxx in without a word of warning," the 27-year-old woman tells Spa! "I was tempted to call the cops on him."

$1000-2000 per month ain't worth experiencing that last paragraph.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 08:31 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Winning Hearts and Minds...

A Jawa Report exclusive!

Yes, it's amateurish. Yes, it's juvenile. Enjoy!

Apologies to Vinnie for totally ripping off his idea.

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:16 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

July 06, 2006

Everyone Has AIDS!

Celebs imitating Team America: World Police imitating caricatures of celebs. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:46 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Perhaps the ad would be a wee bit more effective if they put someone in the ad that actually HAS AIDS? Magic Johnson comes to mind.

Posted by: Mark at July 06, 2006 02:55 PM (UN2Uu)

2 Doctor: "Your wife either has Alzheimers or AIDS."

Husband: "How can we find out which?"

Doctor: "I need you to run a little experiment this weekend. Take your wife to a park and leave her there. If she finds her way home; dont have sex with her."

Posted by: Rusty at July 06, 2006 03:04 PM (h/402)

3 What an odd ad campaign. What a waste of money that could have been used for something useful... like AIDS research.

Posted by: HD Wanderer at July 06, 2006 03:12 PM (nA9AR)

4 Proving once again that it's simply impossible to parody Liberals.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 03:21 PM (8e/V4)

5 HD, this, like anything else lefturds espouse, isn't about the actual problem, it's about creating public awareness, which can then be channeled into serving a political agenda. If the lefturds really cared about stopping the AIDS epidemic, there are many ways they could help, but they really just care about promoting their agenda; one world government. See how they cleverly take a disease that mainly effects a few high-risk groups, and implicate everyone else as being at equal risk, and therefore responsibility? It's all about the socialism with these idiots.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 06, 2006 03:25 PM (v3I+x)

6 "What an odd ad campaign. What a waste of money that could have been used for something useful... like AIDS research."

Indeed, but the group who put this out has an advertising budget and if they don't spend it, they won't get it next quarter. Now as to why they have an advertising budget, I can see the reasoning, but I do agree the money could have been better suited used as something else. Unfortunately though, these scientific labs who hire advocacy groups feel they need to advertise in such ways. Why, I don't know. As Rusty wrote, a cure for AIDS? Well, yeah, that would be nice.

Posted by: Chad Evans at July 06, 2006 03:28 PM (+0rMT)

7 So I'm supposed to feel guilty because two other people I don't even know engaged in unsafe sex, and one transmitted a disease to another. I'm guilty why? Because my church says you shouldn't do that gay sex stuff? And I'm the problem? Huh...

Posted by: XBradTC at July 06, 2006 03:41 PM (JYMV6)

8 I think the largest groups at risk for AIDS right now are women who have sex with infected men (whether from drugs or homosexual contact) and drug users themselves. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone with AIDS, regardless of how they got it. We don't tell people with lung cancer--ha ha, shouldn't have smoked, idiot, do we?

And Brad, what do you think Christ's message to people with AIDS would be? Tough luck about the gay sex, now die?

Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 05:12 PM (aqTJB)

9 >>>We don't tell people with lung cancer--ha ha, shouldn't have smoked, idiot, do we?

Not to their faces. Jesus would show compassion for AIDS victims, but he also told sinner to go and sin no more. And for that you Libs would have called him a hateful bigot.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 05:26 PM (8e/V4)

10 It isn't clear to me that Jesus considered homosexuality a sin. St. Paul, maybe. The Yahweh of the OT, sure. But Jesus had a lot to say, and in all that, he never once criticized homosexual conduct, which was probably pretty widespread given the, uh, penetration of Greek culture in the region Remember, some of the gospels were written in Greek, the high cultural language of the day. Both Greeks and Romans were comparatively tolerant of homosexuality, as were a number of the Semitic and non-semitic cultures at the time. Thus, we can be certain that Jesus knew of it...and yet he never once commented on it, as far as we know. This guy, who found time to attack adultery, and a host of other activities...never mentioned it. I wonder why?

I don't call modern Christians bigots for believing that homosexuality is wrong. I do call them bigots when they vote for things that would deny health benefits to children of gay partners, as is happening in Virginia and other states.

And remember--the Bible was used, for decades, as a support for slavery. They took the Noah story, and then took all the passages approving of slavery and said, see--Jesus had no problem with slavery. A better reader of the Bible saw the deeper truth...

Jesse Helms used to use the bible to support segregation on the air in NC...when he was NC's Rush Limbaugh before he became a senator.

Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 05:44 PM (aqTJB)

11 jd,

Jesus said nothing about pedophilia or child sacrifice either. Proves nothing. He was silent precisely because he had no need to repeat himself or teach them something new on the matter. He had every opportunity to correct them, and he didn't. If Jesus believed homosexuality was ok, he would have told people so, given their views. Christians read the Bible in it's entirety, and nothing in it condones homosexuality. On the contrary. If you don't agree with the Bible, fine. But don't try to hijack it.

The fact is, christians the world over and throughout history DO believe their views on homosexuality are biblically-based. And that's why they hold their views on homosexuality, not because they're hateful bigots. In fact, I wish the Bible wasn't as explicit about homosexuality. I don't hate gays, and it would really simplify things. But your Liberal attempts to label folks as bigots is nothing but scare tactics and political maneuvering. I don't personally don't know any conservative christians who hate gays, but they simply cannot deny God's word. Period.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 05:58 PM (8e/V4)

12 Homosexuals are deviants. They are given over to a repropate mind.

Posted by: Leatherneck at July 06, 2006 06:37 PM (D2g/j)

13 Can't you guys take a break for a sec and realize just how FUNNY this whole thing is?

Posted by: Rusty at July 06, 2006 07:38 PM (HdEeR)

14 Q: What's the hardest part about learning you have AIDS?

A: Trying to explain to your parents that you're Haitian.

Posted by: This is just a joke at July 06, 2006 07:49 PM (utJ4A)

15 Rusty,

are you kidding me? I've been singing the Everybody Has AIDS song all day long. I can't get it out of my head. lol!

Everybody has AIDS! AIDS, AIDS, AIDS! AIDS!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 07:56 PM (8e/V4)

16 My father (AIDS!)
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades

Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
AIDS! x 20

Posted by: Rusty at July 06, 2006 08:26 PM (HdEeR)

17 Hmm...this is all very silly to me, and ineffective. A waste of talent, money and energy. Typical liberal effort, with apologies to jd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 06, 2006 08:35 PM (rUyw4)

18 OK, but Jesus also had nothing to say about a number of the other restrictions announced in leviticus. Are they still in effect?

And surely you aren't serious about saying that anyone who tolerates of or approves homosexuality isn't a Christian? That's one possible reading of your words, so I hope it's not the accurate one.

I actually didn't think the Team America movie was as good as the first South Park movie...although Everyone Has Aids was damn funny.

Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 10:43 PM (DQYHA)

19 You know, Rusty, if you go to the website, it lists all kinds of charities all over the world that are working on this terrible problem. Is it so wrong that they made you look at billboards? There is still a stigma associated with having AIDS, even in America. Will a t-shirt solve that? Will a billboard? Well, it'll make a few people think. Beyond the stigma, the campaign will make a few hundred volunteer for one of these charities. It will raise a few million for the people who don't have health insurance who have AIDS. What is so wrong with this?

However, it is jarring to see that with this massive ad budget, and this professional website, they still have "people Effected by AIDS". One of its effects is apparently poor grammar...

Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 11:39 PM (DQYHA)

20 >>>are they still in effect?

jd,

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law not to destroy it. He also said that not one iota of the Law would pass away until the end of the world. So according to Jesus, yes, they are still in effect. Peter seemed to say the same thing. Messianic Jews believe that. We don't stone adulterers anymore because Jesus took that upon himself. He paid that price. The laws are still there. But Paul is interpreted as giving gentiles leniency from the Biblical dietary codes, etc. I myself have problems with that interpretation, but it has 2,000 years of history behind it, so who am I to argue.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 11:46 PM (8e/V4)

21 jd,

you can tolerate homosexuality and be a good christian, but not if you accept it. Christians who accept homosexuality show ignorance of their own religion. Tolerating it is simply living and letting live, but accepting it is embracing it as good. That's not biblical.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 11:54 PM (8e/V4)

22 Carlos--this is very helpful. Now, let's see if I understand it by analogy:

Two Christians meet. One says, I believe the Bible reflects not only the story of God's only son dying for our sins, but also some of the prejudices and beliefs of the Hebrew people at that time, as reflected through the scribes and those who approved the myriad versions of the various gospels and epistles. Thus, I don't think that the anti-homosexual language in the OT and the NT reflects what Jesus believed. But I do believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, and none shall come to the father save through him (ie, he's born again).

The other Christian says: I respect your views, but in my opinion, the Bible is what the Bible is. It is the Holy Word of God, the One word of truth.

Is the former person a Christian?
(and if you say no, believe me, I have a follow up!)

Posted by: jd at July 07, 2006 12:02 AM (DQYHA)

23 How sick you people really are!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Falcon at July 07, 2006 12:55 AM (6Uk/n)

24 jd,

if you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and saviour, that makes you a christian. But if you don't believe the Bible is innerrant, then it's useless to talk about it. It's one of those, oh well agree to disagree type of things.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 07, 2006 08:54 AM (8e/V4)

25 Maybe the campaign is implying that Mandela, Stone and friends had a big orgie before the shoot?

Posted by: Ed Banky at July 07, 2006 10:09 AM (X9LlJ)

26 Aids: Nature's way of culling out future problems.

Poor JD. Afraid his muslim boy friend will give him aids.
If he hasn't already.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 07, 2006 10:12 AM (Cha30)

27 Maybe the campaign is implying that Mandela, Stone and friends had a big orgie before the shoot?

Posted by: Ed Banky at July 07, 2006 10:14 AM (X9LlJ)

28 A Christian by definition believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Posted by: YBP at July 07, 2006 02:25 PM (gZnyq)

29 Wow. I'm inspired. What a great bunch of people in that ad! Truly. I'm moved. I had no idea all those people had AIDS.

Did anyone else order the shirt yet?

Posted by: thirdee at July 07, 2006 04:51 PM (lm+0X)

30 JD, exhibiting his monumental ignorance, wrote: It isn't clear to me that Jesus considered homosexuality a sin.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Now wasn't homosexuality a sin under the Law? Why yes it was!

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

The fact is that the Law is starting to sound like a pretty good idea, considering the level of depravity to which our society has fallen.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 09, 2006 09:48 AM (v3I+x)

31 OK,then, let's look at what else is banned in leviticus:

Mixing different types of fabric.

Violating the entirety of kosher dietary laws.

Having sex with a woman during her period.

Sitting on something that a woman sat on during her period.

Cooking by a woman having her period.

You tell me you abide by those, and I'll accept that you have a biblically inspired, not bigoted reason for hating homosexuality. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.

Posted by: jd at July 09, 2006 11:06 AM (DQYHA)

32 JD: Theologians have always made a distinction between disciplines created by a religion's human leaders for its members and revealed Divine Law. The former can me modified for whatever reason (e.g., in modern times, the amount of time Catholics should fast before Communion), while the latter can never be altered.

Posted by: YBP at July 09, 2006 11:35 AM (gZnyq)

33 Yup, theologians have done that, and their decisions have been remarkably consistent with the prejudices of the day. What is god-revealed and mandatory to one generation is, with the shifting of culture, simply voluntary and man-created.

For example, the admonition against masturbation in Leviticus was once taught as mandatory, God-revealed truth. Now, all except the most conservative Christians spend very little time campaigning against masturbation, because the rest of the culture would laugh at them, and they would lose members.

Ditto for divorce. It used to be absolutely anathema, forbidden by the Bible. Remember the scene in the new Cash movie, where the bigoted bitch in the drug store goes up to June Carter Cash and rakes her over the coals for the "sin" of being divorced? Well, our fundies today don't do that, because so many Americans (tithing Americans!) are divorced, or will be. Someday, the fundies who today believe that gay marriage is banned by God will adjust their views. Or, those still in their churches will. It is almost, but not quite, inevitable. It is also possible that we will have a resurgence of stricter sexual morality. The evidence from the youngest generation is mixed. they are less sexuality active, but more sexually open. Less inhibited, but less promiscuous. And VERY very pro-gay rights. Even fundy kids are far more pro gay rights than previous young fundies.

Posted by: jd at July 09, 2006 01:32 PM (DQYHA)

34 jd: Yes, many churches try to be popular and are thus doomed to failure.

The Catholic Church still teaches that masturbation is always wrong and that divorce is permisable under certain circumstances if the marriage is deemed valid, although in these cases, remarriage is not allowed.

The Church also teaches that all humans have dignity anre should be loved, but that homosexual acts, just like out-of-marriage heterosexual activity, are morally wrong. I find it odd how so many people who scream about the evils of homosexuality have very little to say about this latter issue.

Posted by: YBP at July 09, 2006 02:19 PM (gZnyq)

35 I don't find it odd at all. The Catholic Church is doing exactly what I described above. If they had stuck to their guns about masturbation and divorce and premarital sex, they'd lose so many followers they'd be a fifth of their size. Same thing happens with Baptists, or any religion, really. It can occupy the right side of the popular beliefs, but it cannot occupy the extreme, and still be popular. Of course, as you adjust to the popular will, you'll lose some schismatically minded followers, and sometimes you'll gauge it wrong, and end up like certain mainstream churches currently, but churches have to move with the times. Always have. They'll deny it, but it becomes more and more obvious as you extend the time span of your examination. Look at what was "unholy" in 1500 and look at today. Case closed.

Oh, and if the Catholics oppose masturbation, they do so today VERY quietly. It's a pro-forma opposition, it's nothing like it was 50 years ago.

Posted by: jd at July 09, 2006 10:12 PM (DQYHA)

36 jd: Any Catholic Q&A book STILL officially opposes all of the things I mentioned above. There might be some gutless people within the Church's ranks who don't want to preach about these things, but I've encountered many priests who still do.

And then there are other churches...

Posted by: YBP at July 10, 2006 09:59 AM (gZnyq)

37 Hate to press you, YBP, but the Catholic League for Decency used to make a field day out of going after any film that referenced masturbation or illicit sex. And they used to have top bishop support. Can you imagine how many Catholics would recoil in embarrassment if they went after masturbation references on television today, let alone movies like American Pie? I don't think many priests are preaching against masturbation from the pulpit today, and I very much doubt it is part of many, if any, sunday school classes, as it was back when. Face it, the holy mother church, just like those "other churchs" picks its battles with an eye on what the people will accept. Unholy yesterday, tolerated today, accepted tomorrow. Just like baptists and interracial marriage, which used to be scripturally banned.

Posted by: jd at July 10, 2006 12:30 PM (12Jpa)

38 jd: I teach CCD (Sunday school), and the book used, within the Diocese, published by Loyala, explicitely rails against a variety of sexual sins, including the old m. word. And this was a fifth gerade class!

I wholeheartedly agree that many a sermon today is on the touchy-feely side, but I maintain that the Church officially, although not as loudly as She should, denounces things like masturbation. Check Fr. Stravinskas' (of Our Sunday Visitor fame) very recent Q$A book. Oddly, the Q&A books I have dating from the 40's don't even adddress the matter, although missals printed in the 50's and up to today mention "impure acts against self" in things to ponder on the way to the confessional.

In search of newer posts...

Posted by: YBP at July 10, 2006 01:09 PM (gZnyq)

39 You know more about this than I do. Sounds like you were right and I was wrong.

Posted by: jd at July 11, 2006 06:51 AM (DQYHA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 05, 2006

Where In The World Is Dr. Rusty Shackleford?

Lewiston, Maine.

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:51 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Maddox on Manliness, Tucker Max on Feminism

Tucker Max, in the course of reviewing Maddox's book "The Alphabet of Manliness," rationally dissects the history of modern feminism. What's next? Dogs and cats sleeping together? Hillary registers Republican? Osama turns to Jesus? At any rate, here it is:

To understand where current culture is, you need to understand how we got here. Feminism came in three "waves"; 1st Wave, which was suffrage (the right to vote), 2nd Wave, which was the 60's and 70's sexual and social revolution fought for inclusion, and 3rd Wave, which is what we have now. It emphasizes freedom of choice for women regardless of what decision they make. Thus it endorses everything from porn to girly culture (in addition to a bunch of post modern horseshit which is irrelevant to any intelligent discussion, much less this one).
Of course, First Wave feminism was a substantial human advancement. Aside from universal suffrage, only the rule of law and the scientific method have done more to advance the human condition. Second Wave feminism was also necessary at the time. It threw off the stifling societal bonds limiting women's ability to be who they wanted to be and advance in fields they choose. However, Second Wave feminism went too far in some ways.

Man, this all feels really wierd. Read the rest here.

Maddox, for his part, provides the following summary of his own book: more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 06:51 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I look around at the festering cesspool our society has become, and somehow can't quite buy into the statement that feminism, from suffrage to now, has advanced the human condition one damned bit. What it has done is to allow women to degrade and debase themselves without repercussion, and encourages men to partake in this travesty. Women are the traditional keepers of an important part of our civilization, but now they're mostly a bunch of amoral whores, and the average man is no better. The destruction of the traditional family was one of the cornerstones of Marx's plan to destroy Western civilization and replace it with a Communist dystopia; feminism is simply a tool to accomplish that goal. I dare anyone to refute me.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 05, 2006 07:03 PM (v3I+x)

2 1912 Atlanta. Who knew? I Didn't until yesterday.

Posted by: Howie at July 05, 2006 07:28 PM (D3+20)

3 IM -

I don't know about the women in YOUR family, but the women in MY family certainly aren't "amoral whores." I'm guessing other readers may have similar sentiments towards the women in their own families. Some might even be offended by your blanket assertion that their mothers, sisters and wives (or at least most of them) are "amoral whores."

I know a number of women who have no interest whatsoever in a husband or children. They'd be completely miserable cooped up in a kitchen or nursery, and giving them the freedom to hang out elsewhere represents a significant improvement in their "human condition."

Some people claim that Marie Curie made some pretty important scientific contributions. Do scientific discoveries count as "advancing the human condition?"

I understand the GIs fighting WWII were more than happy to use the guns, bullets and other weaponry assembled by the "liberated" women back home. To the extent that those weapons shortened the war and brought an end to the march of fascism, I think that counts as "advancing the human condition."

Some have said that the "liberated" women involved in the civil rights struggle "advanced the human condition." I'd say they have a good point.

Some have gone so far as to assert that the Prime Ministership of Margaret Thatcher involved a certain "advancement of the human condition." I think they're right.

I think you can consider yourself refuted.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 05, 2006 10:55 PM (fZeeX)

4 You post your comments after striking out on a date, don't you?

Posted by: spherical human at July 06, 2006 12:54 AM (spznq)

5 Spherical:

Chicks are "amoral whores" these days (just ask Improbulus), so even a stony, one-eye freak like myself can easily score even the finest tail at the drop of a hat. In fact, I'd have to say the "freakiness" factor helps more than it hurts. Hence, no "striking out." Come on, y'all--a DISEMBODIED EYE perched on a MASSIVE TOWER? THAT, y'all, is something SERIOUS and something REAL. THAT'S something to tell the great-grandkids about. And you better know that "fame" factor don't hurt--between all the Washingtons & those "Lord of the Rings" flicks. Aragorn? He ain't got nothin' on the Eye. And you KNOW Eye plays that "Illuminati" shit up. Hey, pimpin' ain't easy, but it's necessary...

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 06, 2006 02:52 AM (c/4ax)

6 I read IM's statement regarding the abandonment of respect for the institution of motherhood, the overall destructiveness of rabid feminism, and many woman acting like "amoral whores" much in the same way that one might interpret the statement "Women today dress too immodestly compared with a generation ago." Obviously such a statement does not include each and every woman, and yet it remains, on the whole, true.

Posted by: YBP at July 06, 2006 12:27 PM (gZnyq)

7 Eye, none of the citations you used have anything to do with the feminist movement. Marie Curie, along with many other young ladies of her time, was simply an exceptional student who became an exceptional contributor to society, but she didn't have to ride the coattails of Susan B. Anthony to get there. The women who worked in the war factories during WWII were not a new thing. And the civil rights movement? Tell me how blacks are sooooo much better off today than they were fifty years ago, as they now make up most of the unemployed and criminal elements within our society. Just because a few things changed doesn't make everything better.
The fact is that society would have been better off if changes in racist and sexist attitudes had been allowed to evolve normally rather than be forced into being by revolutionary movements, because now we're seeing the backside of the movement.
Refuted? No, not even close.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 06, 2006 03:44 PM (v3I+x)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 04, 2006

A Fun Independence Day Quiz

Name the President who gave this stirring 4th of July speech:

Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. "Mankind." That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom... Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live. To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!" We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:06 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I think that is the speech from the US president in the movie "Independence Day". I am too lazy to actually look up the name of the character on the internet.

Posted by: Mark at July 04, 2006 02:27 AM (TDhiV)

2 bzzzzzzzzzzzt

Wrong answer!

Move along, move along.

Next?

Posted by: Vinnie at July 04, 2006 02:43 AM (/qy9A)

3 President Tom Whitmore, Gulf War fighter pilot. Hmm, he was attacked in the movie by pundits who said leadership in combat does not make him qualified for leadership in politics...

I'm not American, but hearing that speech made me tear up.

Posted by: Matthew at July 04, 2006 03:13 AM (1kaT3)

4 Well, shit, that ended early. Thanks alot, Matthew.

phhbbbbbbbbbt

It is inspiring isn't it?

The ironic thing is, it's relevant. We are fighting for our right to live, and to exist. Just not from e.t. invasion, but from Islamofascism.

Posted by: Vinnie at July 04, 2006 03:37 AM (/qy9A)

5 Thank G-d that Apple-uploaded virus was compatible with extremely advanced alien technology!

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at July 04, 2006 04:07 AM (maXzk)

6 That's my husband's favorite movie. I've had to sit through it umpty billion times. Judd Hirsch should have won an award for his role.

Posted by: Oyster at July 04, 2006 05:51 AM (YudAC)

7 That's my husband's favorite movie. I've had to sit through it umpty billion times. Judd Hirsch should have won an award for his role.

Posted by: Oyster at July 04, 2006 06:41 AM (YudAC)

8 If you watch the extended version of the DVD, Jeff Goldblum explains that all the streaming funkiness you see in the background of every alien computer screenshot is their code, and that he was able to break it. By doing that, he was able to write a virus for it.

The extended version also adds a couple of subplots. Well worth watching. I will be doing so once I'm finished with "The Patriot."

Posted by: Peter GÃ¸thgen at July 04, 2006 07:39 AM (SSCqR)

9 Every since I was abducted by aliens I've been dying for some payback.

Posted by: Howie at July 04, 2006 09:04 AM (D3+20)

10 Dammit, and I was so certain it was Millard Fillmore ...

Posted by: E Pluribus Condom at July 04, 2006 11:01 AM (oxMjD)

11 That speech always brings a tear to my eye. Makes me proud to be a...citizen of the world???

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 04, 2006 11:38 AM (8e/V4)

12 Too bad nobody pointed out the speech was pretty much LIFTED from Shakespeare's Henry V.

Then again....

Posted by: mighty7 at July 04, 2006 07:29 PM (jZ6cC)

13 Macs save the world! YAY!

Posted by: Macker at July 05, 2006 01:01 AM (uO2Nq)

14 Shit! I take it back. Mighy7's IQ must be more than 7.

Maybe even 14.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 07, 2006 09:07 PM (BjPXu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thank You, America Hating Leftists

I would like to offer up a sincere thanks to our America-hating leftists.

You see, tomorrow is THE patriotic holiday of the year. It's so patriotic, even leftists who don't hate America (re: Joe Lieberman) will celebrate.

But those who do hate America deserve my undying thanks on this 4th of July.

They will man the ramparts, keep a watchful eye, and do their assigned duties.

The America-hating leftists of this country will staff the convenience stores, grocery stores, and the restaurants in our grand nation while we honor those who gave them the freedom to be imbeciles. They will curse the flag we are flying proudly, cringe at the sound of "The Star Spangled Banner," and wet their pants at the sound of Air Force jets flying overhead while they ring up my purchase.

So thank you, America-hating leftists*, because I'll need to buy beer tomorrow. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

July 02, 2006

More Soul Cleansing : Haifa Wehbe

. . . more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

June 30, 2006

Bin Laden Wants Zarqawi's Body for Necrophilic Sex

Bin Laden Wants Zarqawi's Body for Necrophilic Sex

Al Guardian story, so it has that truthiness factor.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:18 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Bin Laden Wants Zarqawi's Body for Necrophilic Sex

Al Guardian story, so it has that truthiness factor.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Christopher Hitchens on the All-American Sex Act

This is a sentence I never expected to write:
Christopher Hitchens has a multi-page article in Vanity Fair regarding blowjobs.

Well, which is it—blow or suck? (Old joke: "No, darling. Suck it. 'Blow' is a mere figure of speech." Imagine the stress that gave rise to that gag.) Moreover, why has the blowjob had a dual existence for so long, sometimes subterranean and sometimes flaunted, before bursting into plain view as the specifically American sex act? My friend David Aaronovitch, a columnist in London, wrote of his embarrassment at being in the same room as his young daughter when the TV blared the news that the president of the United States had received oral sex in an Oval Office vestibule. He felt crucially better, but still shy, when the little girl asked him, "Daddy, what's a vestibule?"

Yes, Christopher Hitchens talks about fellatio. more...

Posted by: cbjohnson at 08:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

World Cup Destroys the Environment

A blog at the Guardian reports on the horrors created by the soccer World Cup in Germany:

This has prompted one scientist to warn that the Tiergarten's plant and tree life is in serious danger of dying because of the 100,000 litres of (almost exclusively male) urine being dumped on it every day. 'The urea sinks into the ground as ammonia. In small quantities this is a good fertiliser. But too much acidity leads to over-fertilisation and is bad for the soil,' biologist Tilman Lamparter, from Berlin's Free University, warned.

Ban soccer! Ban the World Cup! Save the Earth! Wait, I mean Save the Beer! more...

Posted by: cbjohnson at 06:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

June 29, 2006

Blink 182 Singer Claims 9/11 an Inside Job

Tom DeLange, former guitarist for one of my favorite bands, Blink 182, forgot to put the tinfoil hat on at a recent interview at a San Diego radio station. 9/11 was not the work of Muslim terrorists, but rather the work of our own government. From what I understand, this isn't the first time he's opened his mouth to reveal his stupidity on 9/11, but it's new to me.

Yeah, this is the same guy who wrote these lyrics from Aliens Exist

--we all know conspiracies are dumb.

Dumbass. Then again, this website claims Tom believes in aliens, that he has been abducted, and that he is the victim of alien anal probing....

Apparently, he was Eric Cartman in the previous life. That would explain a lot.

Via Drew Curtis's minions, this from prison planet:

During a hosting spot on a San Diegoâ€™s KAVA-FM radio station, DeLonge talked with Professor James Fetzer about evidence of 9/11 inside involvement.
"We do know that the buildings came down in a fashion extremely similar to a controlled demolition of a building - we do know that expertise that is needed to fly those gigantic planes into that exact location could never have been achieved by someone that just learned how to fly a small plane, said DeLonge."...
"Cheney knew that the planes are coming in and he capped the order to leave it alone so it could hit."...
"It's so weird how our own government did it to us, 9/11 was not perpetrated by a bunch of people that just learned how to fly planes,"...
"We're talking about 60-70% of the American people are actually starting to think that there's a different story, why are we as Americans sitting back and letting this happen to us?"...
"This isn't about the red or blue, this is about this administration being involved in something that is really really scary and really really dark and deceptive."

The thing that always attracted me to Blink was that they weren't part of the whiney Berkeley cowd (I'm looking at you Green Day) that tried to emulate the overtly political lyrics of the British punk invasion. Instead, they were solidly Orange County and seemed to follow the American punk tradition of the Ramones. Maybe they were trying to say something "important", but were just too dumb to get it right.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:40 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Johnny Ramone would be spinning in his grave, that someone influenced by him should be so dumb.

Posted by: Jester at June 29, 2006 06:44 PM (TuAMG)

2 He's not dead. He's with Elvis.

Posted by: Rusty at June 29, 2006 06:50 PM (BXC/2)

3 Doesn't this imply that you thought the guys from Blink are smart?

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at June 29, 2006 06:58 PM (kH2hz)

4 No, but it does imply that maybe THEY think they're smart.

Posted by: Rusty at June 29, 2006 07:00 PM (BXC/2)

5 I live in San Diego and I listened to this piling heap of a radio show. It was on 91x and this fool and his other band of fools did a mock take-over as DJ's and called it KAVA-FM. It was utter conspiratorial nonsense. No one asked the question of why the government would do this to it's own citizenry. Also, there was no challenge to the effect that even if any of these fools had absolute proof that the administration masterminded an attack like this (contrary to their assertions that Bush himself and his administration are dumber than a box of rocks) then who would believe them and what would they do about it?

Posted by: Asmodeus at June 29, 2006 07:04 PM (Oh7dN)

6 Good to see you back and strapped on!!!

Just yesterday, in a one sided word orgy from a former customer of mine, I learned that the twin towers were no act of terrorism/it was an act of our government/there is no such thing as terrorists/spain train nope and you get the drift Moore or less. He had just seen Duh Video. Did I mention "It's all about the oil, man!" and that this guy is French?

A couple of Brits within earshot of his tirade asked me why I didn't say anything. I asked them where does one begin with someone who's mind has been voluntarily removed with all the surgical skill of a hand grenade?

I then invited the two Brits over to celebrate the fourth of July with me.

Posted by: forest hunter at June 29, 2006 07:06 PM (TjUVb)

7 I had a student try to get me to watch one of the conspiracy videos. I didn't know whether to laugh at him or punch him in the mouth.

Posted by: Rusty at June 29, 2006 07:22 PM (BXC/2)

8 Tom DeLange, demolition expert or nose-picking idjit?

Posted by: Elzbth at June 29, 2006 08:12 PM (utJ4A)

9 Should have gone with both Rusty.

Posted by: Mr. Mxyzptlk at June 29, 2006 10:03 PM (Nv6CM)

10 Elvis works for my page.

Posted by: dick at June 29, 2006 10:19 PM (Em77H)

11 I wonder how they try to explain United 93.

Posted by: pka54 at June 29, 2006 10:42 PM (5E3/0)

12 Since it is obvious that none of you have read any U.S. history, maybe you should visit this site.

http://www.wtc7.net/

Get your head out of your ass and help save the country. You tv boomers think that everything you are feed on the TV is real. Read a book, or learn about operation northwoods. Give me libert or give me death.

Posted by: andy at June 29, 2006 10:57 PM (st1Vg)

13 shudda bought that fucking Alcoa stock.

Posted by: Brad at June 30, 2006 12:13 AM (utJ4A)

14 WTF Andy?

"You tv boomers think that everything you are feed on the TV is real."

So how is this scrappy video (on TV - BTW) supposed to be proof of something? Perhaps you are feed on too much libert there Andy.

Never mind that I don't watch TV or believe in the (close your ears kids) tooth fairy.

Posted by: forest hunter at June 30, 2006 12:49 AM (TjUVb)

15 check out steven e jones paper ' why indeed the the wtc collapse'? its a peer reviewed paper by a BYU professor. Do some research and yuo will see that buildng dont fall straight down unless experts plant explosives in them. The implosion industry exists precisely because it doesnt happen naturally. 9/11 is the ONLY time in history that modern building have collapsed from fire, and it is the ONLY time in history that 'random' damage casued near-symettrical collapses. Thats pretty incredible, and when yuo factor in the 'carte blanche' that 9/11 gave the administration to do whatever it wants, its damn convenient too.

Posted by: jimbiz at June 30, 2006 01:41 AM (wQ2KC)

16 Who left the door open?

Could you morons at least learn to spell, type and punctuate your inane babbling?

Posted by: forest hunter at June 30, 2006 02:06 AM (TjUVb)

17 "...The implosion industry exists precisely because it doesnt happen naturally..."

Howeird Deano and his clueless lot would be evidentiary argument to the contrary.

Posted by: forest hunter at June 30, 2006 02:14 AM (TjUVb)

18 I've taken part in an extensive review of that paper. It's a pile of unfounded assertions, quotes taken out of context, and general asshattery. It's written by a physicist, not an engineer, and has been roundly denounced by BYU's engineering department.

It is, in short, utterly worthless.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 30, 2006 03:53 AM (FRalS)

19 I liked Blink too. Too bad about this guy's dumbass beliefs.

Conspiracy theories comfort people who are frightened by the random nature of reality.

The best debunking of this demolition crap is up at Scientific American. Whenever you run into these assholes, tell them to go and read that and get back to you. It's up on line, and it's irrefutable.

Posted by: jd at June 30, 2006 07:33 AM (DQYHA)

20 You people here are just sleeping. I have to ask you who pays you to come to places that discuss 9-11 and rank on those that know that this fraud of a President has pulled off one of the greatist scams in History?
Who pays you ..WHO?

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2006 04:18 PM (bM4TJ)

21 Jason : I dunno but if you find out can you tell em to send mine.

Posted by: Howie at June 30, 2006 04:26 PM (D3+20)

22 I had to look right now it's netflix. Nexflix is behind all this? Are they owned by the jooooooos?

Posted by: Howie at June 30, 2006 04:28 PM (D3+20)

23 Operation Northwoods? Where the fuck were you when militia nut bags were saying OK City was an inside job?

Posted by: h0mi at June 30, 2006 08:07 PM (TcPUH)

24 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911

Terror Storm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm

911 = Who Killed John Oneill = a must for Patriots

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4755449627173127935&q=911+john+oneil

911 Eyewitness

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eye+witness

Posted by: 11:11 at June 30, 2006 08:21 PM (bM4TJ)

25 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911

Terror Storm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm

911 = Who Killed John Oneill = a must for Patriots

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4755449627173127935&q=911+john+oneil

911 Eyewitness

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eye+witness

Posted by: 11:11 at June 30, 2006 08:24 PM (bM4TJ)

26 check out steven e jones paper ' why indeed the the wtc collapse'?
While you're doing that, why not check out his paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for
Christ's Visit in Ancient America"

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm

One paper about Jesus visiting North America, the other on WTC. credible.

get a clue, meatpuppet.

Posted by: davec at June 30, 2006 10:24 PM (voZp6)

27 Well, this guy is a douchebag. Like the Bush administration could really pull off a successful operation.

Posted by: Joe at June 30, 2006 11:32 PM (5zxY/)

28 I wonder how much rusty shackleford has looked into how mcuh overwhelming evidence there is to suggests that there is far more to 9/11 than the official government story is telling us. I would of called it crazy too until i started looking much closer.

I would say this particular article too is rather slanted and biased, not to mention insulting. If you cant find any other way to bring someone down other than insulting them (i.e show us your hard facts to back up your end of the story) its obvious your a very simple, opinionated and anally retentive reporter.

Posted by: Dave at July 01, 2006 06:36 AM (GETiZ)

29 I wonder if rusty shackleford has looked into how much overwhelming evidence there is to suggest that there is far more to 9/11 than the official government story is telling us. I would of called it crazy too until i started looking much closer, and realised that high rise steel frame buildings do not and have never been pulversized to extremely fine dust particles on the order of 30-300 microns across by a 'fire and collision damage'.

The buildings exploded into dust (in 10 seconds flat), molten pools of metal were found underneath the towers, burning for months! No large chunks of building, no remains, no office equipment, no nothing, just dust.

I would say this particular article too is rather slanted and biased, not to mention insulting. If you cant find any other way to bring someone down other than insulting them (i.e show us your hard facts to back up your end of the story) its obvious your a very simple, opinionated and anally retentive reporter.

Posted by: Dave at July 01, 2006 06:42 AM (GETiZ)

30 There are websites debunking Loose Change, I commend them to all who might see it and think, for just a moment, that the government was involved.

I'm not automatically opposed to all conspiracy theories. I'm open to the idea that the Ruskies tried to have the Pope killed, and while I think Oswald acted alone, I don't think it is a dead certainty. But 9-11? Puhleaz! There's a better chance that the CIA is running your brain through electronic controls in your teeth fillings.

Posted by: jd at July 01, 2006 11:14 AM (DQYHA)

31 1. The Bush administration took down the WTC with a controlled demolition to trick us into war.
2. Bette Midler had a love child by Yasser Arafat.
3. I have a tiny flying saucer in my garage.
4. Remember, if you're very sincere, reality is what you want it to be. Clap for Tinkerbell.

Posted by: Brentbo at July 01, 2006 12:59 PM (c70Hc)

32 Thanks to people like the "Dave" above, I have decided to invest in the "Bacofoil" company, people like him and Greg need a constant supply to keep their head wrapped.

Posted by: davec at July 01, 2006 02:36 PM (voZp6)

33 Ignorance is bliss! Do the research and then speak, all of you just take what is given to you. WAKE UP!

Posted by: does it matter at July 03, 2006 10:48 AM (yS09P)

34 JD Conspiracy theories comfort people who are frightened by the random nature of reality.

.. for one.. a airliner place crashing
into two towers.. and the pentagon..
is not random nature of reality..
i'm not sure if your idiotic ass has noticed
but look how this country has been ever
since the attacks.., phone lines are being tapped,
this country can be locked down by their new
"terror alert" system , every americans
freedom has been taken away, and yes
i'm glad this guitarist from blink is speaking out the truth which many people are scared to do

Posted by: st0n3 at July 03, 2006 11:10 AM (utJ4A)

35 Every jackass who actually believes what the media tells them is a simple minded fool
Bush and his administration are nothing but
professional liars who spreads their propagnda
to get what they want , they dont care
how many innocent people they kill
Its sad to see that many americans know this
yet they do nothing about it

Posted by: st0n3 at July 03, 2006 11:15 AM (utJ4A)

36 Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. By "random nature of reality" I meant to suggest that for some people, it seems impossible that a nation as powerful and technologically sophisticated as the US could be attacked so easily by 19 fanatics armed with box cutters. It does not, however, take a grand conspiracy involving an inside job of 1000's of people to pull this off.

And the steps that have happened since were not planned in advance. They happened due to countless negotiations and interactions among executive branch and (too infrequently) congressional and judicial branch authorities.

It would be oddly comforting to think that there was a single unified conspiracy behind 9-11 and everything that has happened since. Because if it were done that way, the solution would be difficult, but simple--find them, remove them, and the wrong will be righted. But the awful truth is much more complex, and much more difficult. Islamofascists hit us, and we spiralled into a disastrous war in Iraq. True, it had long been in the planning by neo-cons, but they were opportunistic, not conspiratorial, with regards to 9-11.

I've looked at the conspiracy theories for 9-11, and whether it is the arabs saying it was Mossad, and all the Jews got out, or lefties saying it was planned by Bush, they are all equally bogus, bozo, and afactual.

Posted by: jd at July 03, 2006 04:55 PM (DQYHA)

37 You have no idea if the steps were planned before the attacks.., i've have heard an audio recording of FEMA saying they were going to do a clean up job the night before the attacks happened, another case is how the twin towers fell , firefighters stated that they saw explosions going on inside the buildings like if they were some sort of bombs.., and if you look at the video it looks like they were demolished, recently on the news they were trying to show this plane that hit the pentagon? why is that? one to stop the truth movement, two to bring up that hate many Americans have against Muslims now to invade yet another country "iran" , the video they showed didn't prove anything, it was the same still photos they had showed many years ago, why did the government take all the tapes from local gas stations, motels and other areas.. and have not released those tapes to the public, have you looked around your streets lately? have you noticed all the police officers that are out there watching everyone's single move , its not like before.., its getting ridiculous and out of control , JD you claim you've looked at the 911 conspiracies.. , maybe you haven't looked much into them because theres alot you dont know.., and i'm not sure if you know this.. , but theres a bunch of other countries who are doing their own investigations about 911 and believe it was an inside job, and as for iraq.., that war was pretty much pointless.., innocent of americans and iraqis have died because of it.., who led us into that war? BUSH , i'm not saying he's planning everything, to me bush is nothing more but a mear puppet and as for osama, hes what I like to call a scapegoat .., you can believe what you want, I know the truth about 911

Posted by: st0n3 at July 03, 2006 07:23 PM (Jj1Zo)

38 You only wish you were as hot as Tom DeLonge!!!!

Posted by: Alyssa at July 05, 2006 02:14 PM (utJ4A)

39 You only wish you were as hot as Tom DeLonge!!!!

Posted by: Alyssa at July 05, 2006 02:14 PM (utJ4A)

40 it is a scientific fact now that 9/11 was an inside job. objects cannot fall through steel and concrete as fast as they fall through the air for one thing. anyone who disagrees can email me. nickspinner@gmail.com
I hope everyone wakes up to this quick because American dictatorship is not too far away if this isnt exposed. 9/11 was clearly another played out problem-reaction-solution

Posted by: Nick at July 07, 2006 01:47 PM (+vXvv)

41 why is it when someone proposes another idea or theory that individual is attacked personally, called dumbass, nut, etc. In a Ad Hominem logical arguement it does not matter who proposes the arguement to determine if it is valid or not. You simply look at the actual arguement and not the person. another words if Charlie Manson said, Canada is North of the United States, this could be true even if he is crazy.

so, when Tom D says something, lets discuss if what he said is true or not and not attack him personally.

If someone could answer me these four proposals on the subject of the 9/11 story;

1. How did World Trade Center tower 7 collapse in a freefall (8 seconds) without a plane hitting it and no major fires?

2. Where is the plane wreckage in front of the pentagon and in the ditch in Pennyslvania (no wreckage on video and pics)?

3. How did the 757 that hit the pentagon fit in the 16 ft wide by 24 ft hole shown in pics and video of the crash site and not leave the wings, tail and engines on the lawn (google 911 in plane site)?

4. How were the 4 hijacked planes allowed to fly over NY and Washington (World's most protected airspace) for an average of 40 minutes each and a total of 2 hours without ANY NORAD fighter jet intercept?

attack me if you must, and see if you can answer these three questions?

peace
Shawn

Posted by: Shawn Cooper at July 10, 2006 02:49 PM (ZRr3H)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"I hate all that obligation"

Poor Japanese. You've read about their disinterest in sex, wives turning into porn actresses to get some action, and lonely women turning to male love dolls. A recent poll says things really are bad:

The magazine bases its judgment on a survey of 3,000 single men aged from 20 to 39 in which it discovered two thirds do not have a girlfriend and a startling one-third haven't had a partner for three years or more...
"That's precisely why I'm unattached," says Dragon Odawara, a manga artist who's become famous by drawing cartoons about remaining a virgin well into adulthood. "When you go out with a woman, you've got to meet once a week, call her up and all that stuff. I hate all that obligation. Besides, how often do relationships go as you want them to?"...
"Guys who don't have much of a chance to meet women, and instead relieve themselves through such alternatives as adult movies or sex services, get used to being aroused by the beautifully-built women they see in these things and can't be satisfied by the average woman on the street."

There is only one thing to do: post another Japanese edition of Filipina Celebs. Ladies and gentlemen, Jun Natsukawa. Please help her find love.

Related here.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 10:29 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

June 17, 2006

Filipina Celeb - Melissa Leslie

Melissa has an interesting bio: she is a freelance artist (sculpture and oil painting), currently attending the Academy of Arts in San Francisco after getting an Associates Degree in Computer Graphics. She is 23, 5'2, 100lbs, Filipino-mix. More of her here, along with the daily roundup.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 02:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Beer, Coffee, And PIZZA!

On top of the great news about coffee helping your liver, 17 beers per day helping your prostate, today we learn that pizza prevents cancer.

I can't think of any better news than this.

Friggin' Ace beat me to this post. I suck.

P.S. - What about cigarettes, don't they cure anything? Maybe watching football cures heart disease? Nachos cure sterility?

Posted by: cbjohnson at 02:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

June 16, 2006

Filipina Celeb - Anna Tan, Semi-Celeb

Anna is almost unknown on the web. She is apparently a model without a website or any advertising. Hmmm, maybe not really a celeb, but cute. More here. more...

Posted by: cbjohnson at 07:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

June 15, 2006

Filipina Celeb - Jae Angel

Jae is a Filipina living in Scottsdale, Arizona. She is an ex-dancer who now models for a living. She is 5'3 and 96lbs. More here.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 04:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

June 14, 2006

We Get Results #3285

From deep within his Fort Collins bunker, Macktastic Rusty Wicked sends this comment from one of his posts:

Name: vanezza hashmi
Email Address: vene786@yahoo.co.uk
URL:
"" can you stupid f****** idiots stop going on about islam, leave our
religion alone,just why you have no religion or faith and you feel it
is ok to talk about islam,you have no right what so ever to discuss
islam ,mind your own business,you are nothing but a bunch of p**
eating,fanny licking sons of million dad's,just go home and ask your
slag,whore mother's who your father's are and you will be given the
names of all the men in the neighbour hood,go to hell you pigs

Well, vanezza, before this pig heads to hell, I'll give you the Official (not) Jawa Report Wikipedia entry, sent out by stalwart co-blogger The All Seeing Eye:

Jawa on Wikipedia, the Most Accurate Source Of Information Ever.

I feel sorry for the residents of Niue Island as jihadis search mercilessly for the Official Jawa Report Secret Base.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

The Trials Of PK

Holy crap, I coulda been a Kennedy.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

June 09, 2006

Translate The Mumble

Traderrob's post has me, like you, asking "what did Zarqawi mumble?"

Feel free to submit your translation of Z-man's last words in the comments.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:19 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

June 07, 2006

Huh?

Since I took a vacation day tomorrow, I went searching for a picture to do a mid-week Caption Contest. The guilt of not judging last Blog Sabbath's contest overwhelmed me, even though I never said that fatwas would be issued.

Anyway, at this link, I found this:

Well, imagine my relief knowing that the Left no longer has the "Where's Osama" meme.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

207kb generated in CPU 0.0995, elapsed 0.1376 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.0984 seconds, 508 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

July 11, 2006

July 08, 2006

July 07, 2006

July 06, 2006

July 05, 2006

July 04, 2006

July 02, 2006

June 30, 2006

June 29, 2006

June 17, 2006

June 16, 2006

June 15, 2006

June 14, 2006

June 09, 2006

June 07, 2006

Recent Comments