PeterDavid.net

Peter, I hate to be a downer, but I share your pessimism, as Homeland Security has promised to try and get rid of the names that obviously don't belong on that list, but since they don't seem to have any great accountability to do so, I really don't see it happening any time soon.

Ironically, I just saw a story on CNN I think, about a very young boy who had trouble recently because it turned out that his name was on the Watch List. Of course Homeland Security pooh-poohed the problem by saying there are no kids on the list, but I remember thinking, yeah, but what happens in ten years when he's older and then for the rest of his life?

I sympathize with your difficulties. I am not sure if you know this but even Sen. Ted Kennedy was on the list at one point in time as ludicrous as that may sound. In short I am sorry that your wife has been put on this list while there are so many other things which funds should be directed to. Your inconvienence, unfortunately is shared by many with a questionable feeling of saftey attached to it.

Maybe they thought Kennedy would be piloting the plane.

Peter, the entire mess you just described was on Boston Legal last year. Megapatriot Denny Crane had the same name as a suspected terrorist and took Alan into court to fight it. At one point, the TSA rep asks whilst on the stand how many Denny Cranes could possibly be affected. Alan agrees and asks anyone who's an inconvenienced Denny Crane to stand up. As the entire court audience stands, Alan observes that these are merely the Denny Cranes within driving distance of the Boston court....since none of them can fly.

Blackadder: You have no idea what irony is, do you Baldrick?
Baldrick: Sure I do. It's like bronze-y or gold-y, except it's made of iron.

Well, Baldrick apparently understands it better than Alanis.

So when did this start? You guys have been flying to conventions for some time - I take it there's been no other incidents in the past?

Maybe it's time for her to start booking her flights under her maiden name.... :)

I read something recently that said that like less than one percent of cases Homeland Security brings to court (or whatever)actually involve terror suspects. The rest are illegal aliens.

Your encounter with the jerk reminds me of an expeience i and first wife Susan had returning from visiting her family in Louisville. At that time, Eastern had three gates at Hartsfield here in Atlanta that involved a "mobile gate" - a bus with an elevating mechanism - to get from the concourse to the plane out on the field somewhere.

Susan was a bit queasy after the flight, and the mobile gate was clearly marked no smoking. So a jerk sits down across from us (it had seats along both sides facing the center and two rows along the middle facing outward on each side) and lights up.

I ask him to put it out. He says no. I point out that it's making my wife sick. His reaction is "then move". I point out the "No Smoking" sign. He says "So what?"

I go complain to the driver. He says "We'll be in the terminal in a few minutes. Why not just move."

I go back. The guy smirks, blows some smoke my way. I swing my paperback book and, just missing his nose, knock the cigarette out of his mouth.

He starts to get threatening, and then apparently takes in just how big i was. (Kathleen will probably remember me in thoise days - six feet, onl slightly overweight in the low-to-mid 200's, shoulder length hair, bushy beard, jeans and t-shirt with someting smart-ass on it.) He gets up, walks around the end of the center rws, sits down on the outer row facing us across the bus.

He starts to light another, loudly announcing, as if i had readon to be afraid of him in his suit and tie and short hair, "You better not come over here."

Before he finished the sentence, i was out of my seat and had bounded *over* the middle rows, and was nose-to-nose with him as i plucked the unlighted cigarette from his mouth, crushed it in my fist, and let the remains trickle down into his lap.

"Or what?" i asked. As Roger Hall says about a different situation, even though my face was very close to his, i probably gave the impression of speaking from a great distance.

He subsided in his seat, muttering about "Damn hippie motherf**ker..."

I went back to my seat, not quite bowing to the people who were not quite applauding.

(Of course, i was damned lucky that he didn't let his anger overpower his good sense and shop me for assault, which, if any of the witnesses had been found and testified, would have been a pretty easy conviction...)

I always wonder, if they've got these lists of terrorists, Why the hell don't they arrest them!? It was the same question when they told us they would only tap the phones of people talking to terrorists; if they know who these people are, if they're terrorists, why don't we go and get them??!??

Back in '94 I was heading to Japan from Montreal through O'Hell, er, O'Hare but American Immigration in Montreal held me up for interrogation (remember this was years before the '01 thing) though they never said why. Eventually there came a final boarding call and then a P.A. call wondering where I was since I hadn't shown up at the gate. The officious jerks at immigration ignored it telling me they'd come get me if it was really urgent.

They eventually let me go, with no apologies or explanations and I dashed to the gate, arriving just in time to see the plane head off.

I was NOT amused.

Fortunately the airline managed to make alternate, last-minute arrangements which allowed me to make my connecting flight after all, albeit with only minutes to spare.

The only thing I don't understand is how it is some friends/acquaintances in the U.S. still don't get why the farther I stay from the U.S. border, tha happier I am.

P.S. - About that no-fly list - a news item about a similar one in Canada had someone going on about how it'll never work because terrorists don't use their real names. Uh, it won't work precisely because they DID use their real names, but they weren't wanted for anything so it wouldn't have helped anyway.

"They gave her a piece of paper with a number to call to have herself removed from this list."

But... but... but... it wasn't her name on the list. It was a name *similar* to hers. Won't they just say that whether she's a terrorist or not, the other person might be?

How different were the names? Are we talking a couple of letters or a pretty significant difference. If they're checking similar names, that could potentially be *anyone*, depending on just how loosely they define "similar."

I was once pulled over on my way home to Clearwater from Miami. After a few minutes of waiting, more and more cop cars appeared. After 20 minutes, in total, there were 10-12 police cars surrounding my vehicle.

The cop that stopped me had only asked for my driver's license, not my registration or anything else when I was first stopped.

While few details were provided to me, I was eventually told that my name was tagged as a 'hot file' or something because there was a guy or ex-cop with my name running guns out of New York or something.

I was 21 years old at the time and scared witless. "Sir, I live at home with my parents. We've lived here for 12 years. I way 140 pounds and have seen a badge maybe 3 times in my life. I've worked in the same grocery store for 5 years."

I hear one cop say to another "seemed a bit young to be a cop.."

I was let off with a light warning "you're entering city limits so try to watch your speed" but I seriously started to wonder what kind of information a cop's computer provides and how often these kinds of things occur.

I was out of the country during the September 11 attacks (Scotland, England, and Paris), and ever since then I get a lot of scrutiny whenever I fly or travel internationally. It probably doesn't help that I worked in Hong Kong for a year and a half afterwords, and my passport has had pages added and is full of stamps. Despite having never been arrested, I almost always get bags searched and harassed by customs. I get questioned for travel that took place years ago.

When I moved back from Hong Kong in late 2003, I was taken aside by US Customs when I first landed in the states. I had legitimate items confiscated because customs agents tore through my stuff, and confiscated legitimate legal items that they didn't know what to do with (such as legally purchased video cds that weren't pirated, and movies on two discs, like Snatch.) After being held up for well over an hour, and badly needing to eat, pee, and make my connection home, they finally said I could leave once I signed an acknowledgement that they had taken some of my belongings. I wasn't going to pick a fight then and there, so I signed the fine print paperwork, with the idea I'd dispute it when I was comfortably home. I did fight it, and was told that what I had signed was actually a waiver, and that I could not dispute what was taken. My congressman was powerless to do anything when I contacted him, and my appeal went nowhere.

US Customs is now run by the Department of Homeland Security, by the way. How their inappropriate confiscations did anything to make the country safer, I'll never know.

The no-fly list affected a politician as I recall (Some one else might have the details) and he couldn't get his name of the list easily, either.

But Peter, I'm just glad that the basic lesson "Bullies are cowards and should be stood up to" is something that you know and acted upon.

The world would be a better place if more people acted like you.

Some time on google, and I found that

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee Donald Young was surprised to find himself on the US no-fly list as he tried to board a flight from Alaska to Seattle.

Young is not the first prominent politician to find himself on the list - Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Democratic Rep. John Lewis have also been stopped from flying due to their names appearing on the list.

While flying to Disney a few years ago, blasted on Ativan in preparation for the flight (I don't fly well) and with 3 kids in tow, I made the mistake of pointing out the one security line that didn't seem to have many people in it, so we got in that one. This one, of course, turned out to be the special line for people needing their luggage and feet searched (even if you were wearing 99-cent rubber thongs.) Once you realize your mistake, you're not allowed to back out.
Amazingly, we still got through faster than if we'd stayed in the other (I think they took pity on us). This was a warning, however, of things to come. When we arived in Orlando at 9 pm (I was starting to regain consciousness), we found out that although Disney had kept our princely deposit, they had cancelled all our reservations for no reason they could understand. Worse yet, they'd cancelled our car reservation - which they didn't make, we did - and they had no vans left unless we wanted a 15-passenger, at $800 for the week.

Disney has a secret complaint number they do not give to the public; you have to know an insider or someone in their Frequent Guest club. Calling it, we not only got an apology, but more than half off our hotel stay (but still less than the damned tickets). And we managed to get a giant Excursion instead of a van.

As far as security goes, most of it is a joke. Checking passengers means little when most luggage and cargo is not screened. We were able to walk into the Smithsonian with our pocket knives despite a check. NASA seems to have the tightest security I've seen. At Canaveral, they confiscated my little keychain calculator (with a see-through case) because the battery had died and I couldn't prove it was a calculator. Nor was I allowed to take it back when I left.
I'm grateful I only fly every 5 years.

I worry about this type of thing happening to us every time we fly.

Good luck to the likely tens if not hundreds of Kathleen Davids out there and the bs from the government. Most likely you're going to be stuck with this now for a long time.

In a similar vein, a few weeks ago, I was pulling into a shopping center parking space. These spaces were the diagonal type, and the strip between them is clearly marked "One Way". So, I pull into the spot, noting in passing that a large-ish SUV is pulling into the top of the lane. So, I put my car in park, and stroll happily but quickly(as I had thirty minutes to get to work) and then I hear the yelling. "What, you didn't see me there?" was one of the more repeatable things that this short stocky fellow says. followed by "Man, I'd kick your ass if I wasn't working." So, I pointed to the store and asked if he worked there, a sharp retort on my tongue. "No, but I swear blankety blankety blank--" Now, this guy might've been 5'2". I'm 6'3". I had this insane image of that helmet pushing scene from Spaceballs. I could hear the guy complaining all through the store. Then they paged security. I was amused. I do have to say, though, it took a lot to stop myself from just hauling off and hitting the guy. My hands didn't stop shaking for an hour after that, but I kept my temper. Kinda proud of that.

This fills me with loads of confidence for the next couple of Weeks ... My wife and few friends (all fans - which of course means a bit odd and highly strung) are doing London - San D (comic con of course) San D - Vegas (Vow renewal at the ST experience - anyone wanna come ?) Vegas - Frisco then Frisco back to London all in 9 Days.

Now I've a part arabic name (from about 8 generations back) and my Wife is from the Punjab ... I suspect we are gonna have real fun and games ..

He informs me I have no idea who I'm f***ing with, and then heads to the back of the line....

"Kathleen David" is apparently a similar name (not even the same: Similar) to someone who is a suspected terrorist.

Even if the guy was bee-essing you, maybe two incidents are related. Maybe the guy sent to the back of the line got a similar shakedown.

I always wonder, if they've got these lists of terrorists, Why the hell don't they arrest them!?

It isn't like they don't want to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html

I can't believe you are complaining! Do you want the terrorist to win? Because it certainly sounds like you want the terrorist to win. Whatever inconvenience we have, or 'freedoms" that Great leader Bush asks us give up, are worth it to defeat the terrorist. If we do not submit to the security that Great Leader Bush has decided is necessary, then we will lose our freedoms to the terrorist.
So how about you just stand in line and have a nice cup of Shut the F**k Up!
God bless America and Great Leader Bush.

Would anybody care to lay odds that the guy that Peter "didn't know who he was f***ing with," had some sort of capacity to report Kathleen as a potential terrorist? I would expect that the story about "your name is similar to that of a terrorist" is probably a cover story for "just because," that way, you can't get your name removed, because you don't know the name to tell them is a problem!

To me, this seems fairly obvious. The creation of TSA and DHS have taught me the inescapable truth about the inherently corrupting nature of power.

"I was let off with a light warning "you're entering city limits so try to watch your speed" but I seriously started to wonder what kind of information a cop's computer provides and how often these kinds of things occur."

The information is actually rather hit or miss in its quality. Sometimes everything comes through 110% perfectly and other times it comes through telling us we have a wanted subject because NCIC decided to hit based only on the date of birth or a similar name. The dumbest one I ever saw was when one of the Richmond guys I backed up had a subject come back as wanted for murder. We had a scared spitless Asian kid (eighteen or nineteen, maybe five foot four and all of one hundred pounds soaking wet) and he's getting cuffed and stuffed until conformation comes through. Dispatch gets the full suspect information and the wanted subject is described as something like six foot four, close to three hundred pounds, in his mid-thirties and black. The best we figured, the hit was based just on the the fact that the two of them had the same last names and the same day and month of birth. Yeah, that little bit can do it.

The airports can be just as dumb since they have to use the same basic information set up. That's how you can get this stupidity...

http://www.kctv5.com/news/13714299/detail.html

... that's then compounded by the airport workers being a) caught up by some regulations that they could be fired for disregarding no matter what common sense tells them and b) workers that don't have that much common sense to begin with.

And people who know me can't figure out why I'll drive from Virginia to Florida with no stops if I'm pressed for time rather then do the trip in half the time by plane.

Heh. I've had problems flying ever since a series of unfortunate events left me having purchased a last minute ticket (Dad gave me his flight info, not mine, so I missed my plane and had to rebook at the counter), going thru last minute security (because of the last minute purchase), and having them open my bookbag to have a plethora of books on the origins of fundamentalism, terrorism, and Islam come flying out of my backpack.

..woops.

i flew from belfast to edinburgh last year around the time of the hightened security. i bought one of your star trek books (one of the worf adventures) to read on the flight and some sweets because i have problems with my ears. i was amazed that i was allowed neither on the flight. i made a comment about paper cuts and was removed from the que and informed that anymore comments like that and i would be removed from the flight. i asked if i could put the book in an envelope and post it home. the security guard took too much pleasure snatching the book from my hands and throwing it in a large bin. only the fact i'm a gentleman stopped me from being locked up. i still havent read the book or been able to find another copy. (it was the 2nd one hint, hint)
all the best
Bill

"Maybe they thought Kennedy would be piloting the plane."

I understand this was an attempt at humor, but I knew John John before he died, and this is in no way funny. He was a damn good pilot and I still have dire misgivings about the "official" story of how that plane went down.

"Why don't they arrest them?"

Because these lists are not just for people who they're trying to arrest, but for people they don't have any evidence on but think might be shaky. Maybe the "real" Kathleen David (or Davis, etc) is the sister of a guy who once got picked up while hanging out with some IRA guys, and so might have some sympathies to a mostly inactive terrorist organization. Hardly enough to make a case on. But who wants to be the one who let through an unlikely suspect who turned out to be an actual terrorist?

Remember, it's not about keeping the public safe, it's about keeping their phoney-baloney jobs safe. If we ever do have another terror attack in this country, everyone below a certain pay grade who might have potentially stopped it will probably get fired. And everyone above will probably get laterally transferred and quietly promoted later.

---Dave

I thought it was a Chappaquiddick reference since the Kennedy being mentioned was Ted, not John Jr.

So how about you just stand in line and have a nice cup of Shut the F**k Up!

I know it's Monday morning and all, but please, somebody tell me that ed's post isn't serious.

I know it's Monday morning and all, but please, somebody tell me that ed's post isn't serious.

I don't believe he was serious.

And, PAD, you were far more calm and resonable than I would have been if someone was bad-mouthing MY wife.... Whenever someone throws the line of "you have no idea who you're f***ing with", I usually end up laughing at them and tell them I don't give a flying f***.

Hopefully, coming home won't be such a bad experience for you and your family.

Geez. I thought we had it rough last month when flight delays had us sitting on the tarmac (with a 2-year-old) for SIX HOURS ... but now I'm realizing ways in which it could've been a lot worse. Condolences to PAD and especially Kath -- here's hoping that you beat the odds and make all of this go away very easily.

Mike (Weber), I love that story. I wish I had the physical presence to be able to pull something like that off.

TWL

The Chappaquiddick reference was obvious enough, and pretty funny. As for "John John" (I assume he had outgrown the name a few years previously), his piloting skills speak for themselves. I feel much more sympathy for his sister in law and a bit more for his wife, than I do for him, as they died without any stupidity on their part beyond getting on the plane. When other people die because of one's recklessness the romanticism of the whole thing disappears.

I am sympathetic to Mrs. David's situation, but it is very likely PAD was already aware that things like this do happen: The fact that it affected his own family makes it neither a larger nor a smaller outrage. (On his set-to with the linebreaker, what can I say but that he was right?) I know several aged women, in their 80s, American-born, and part of the majority ethnicity - statistically unlikely to be involved with international terrorism - who have been subjected to strip searches and enhanced inspection. Strangely enough, I do not know anyone else to whom it has occurred. It appears that TSA enforcement is largely at the caprice of the inspectors.

> Geez. I thought we had it rough last month when flight delays had us sitting on the tarmac (with a 2-year-old) for SIX HOURS ...

Homeland (in)Security meets deregulated airlines. And the merriest of good luck to you all.

Of course, you could always elect another government, one which takes a less extreme tact on things.

"Remember, it's not about keeping the public safe, it's about keeping their phoney-baloney jobs safe."

In that vein, my Mom had an interesting story. 3 or 4 years ago she and my Dad took a very nice international trip. The airline searched her bags and confiscated her nail clippers. So obviously, small nail clippers are too dangerous to allow passengers to have.

When the meal was served on the flight, it included full silverware, including real metal steak knives.

I have a theory (which I never repeat in the presence of customs people, who have even less of a sense of humor than Catholic school nuns) which is that somewhere there is a group of bad dudes who are less concerned with blowing us up than just f**king with us. After one drunken night out, one of them said, 'What we can do to make their lives miserable?' and his equally drunken companion said, 'Let's trick some really dumb guy into trying to blow up his shoes; that way everybody will have to take off their shoes and sneakers whenever they walk through the airport!'

A couple of years later, the bad dudes get together again and try to figure out what would be an even more ridiculous item to get confiscated. 'I know, the first guy says, 'Let's get them to ban liquids; that way, people can't even bring a bottle of factory-sealed water onto a plane, unless they buy it at the airport for an inflated price!' The second guy thinks about it and says, "But aren't they going to figure out that there's nothing dangerous about a sealed bottle of water?" "Of course not," says Bad Dude #1, "these are the guys who ban lighters but allow matches! These are the guys who ban nail clippers but allow dozens of items that are much sharper and more dangerous!'

Makes you wonder what the bad dudes are going to get banned the next time they get together for a couple of beers. If we're really lucky this time, maybe it will be screaming babies.

Sorry to hear about your airport troubles!

My husband and I had a few troubles in May/June during our 3-week Europe trip but the only airport that gave us hassle was London-Heathrow. Never again will we fly there. Let's just say the first two times (of the four passes we made there) went fine but the last two were horrible. It included searching me and padding me down twice within 2hrs even when the metal detector didn't go off but of course I didn't want to cause trouble despite my desire to make a smart-ass remark about the female security personnel wanting to feel me up. We noticed though that there seemed to be an abundance of "well-endowed" women who were being pulled aside for check despite the "random 3 persons" check the security guy told us they do.

Even though this was a foreign airport, it really made me wonder about security checks since I only have been searched once on any of the flights I've made domestically in my whole life. I got checked and questioned more often this time than I did going to Europe immediately following 9/11 and the start of the war in 2003. Either way, LAX (our most local international airport) security is a joke be it domestic or international flights.

You married that woman without doing a full background check on her? Serves you right for becoming involved with a known terrorist.

"these are the guys who ban lighters"

And now lighters are going to be allowed again, more or less (imo) on the basis that the TSA is giving up on trying to keep people from bringing them on flights to begin with.

It's all about the money, people. At Bradley, your nail clippers will be confiscated (before you commit a hangnail offense), but on the other side of the check you are perfectly allowed to by a new pair at the newstand. There is no sense to any of it. At Bradley, my husband watched them take the crutches from a man with only one leg, and then demand that he remove the leg - but wouldn't give him back the crutches to stand up with in the meantime. He almost intervened, but figured he'd be arrested if he did.

Well, I, my father, and brother, have all had to go through extra hassles at airports because terrorism suspects on the "No Fly List" supposedly share our names. I'm Scott Jones. They are both Charles Jones. When you see in the newspaper terrorists arrested, how many of them have been named Jones, anyway?

So how about you just stand in line and have a nice cup of Shut the F**k Up!

I know it's Monday morning and all, but please, somebody tell me that ed's post isn't serious.

Do you really have to ask? Wasn't I O'Reilly enough for you?:-}

BTW, if you're all wondering why lighters, you might want to look at the cosy relationship the Tobacco Lobby has with this White House. We really don't want smokers without lighters when the rush from the plane to light up.

Jeffrey Frawley: "As for "John John" (I assume he had outgrown the name a few years previously), his piloting skills speak for themselves. I feel much more sympathy for his sister in law and a bit more for his wife, than I do for him, as they died without any stupidity on their part beyond getting on the plane. When other people die because of one's recklessness the romanticism of the whole thing disappears."

It is worth noting that John Kennedy Jr. was cleared for take-off by the FAA and had the training required by law to allow him to fly in such conditions.

Here's what I think happened: Mr. "You don't know who you're f-ing with," was with Homeland Security, off duty. At the back of the line, he snapped Kathleen's pic with his camera phone, ran it through Carnivore, got a name to go with the face, then hastily typed her name (with a mistype, but close enough) through his PDA into the no-fly list.

"Wasn't I O'Reilly enough for you?:-}"

Actually, Ed, only the "Great Leader Bush" bit tipped me off. The rest was too subtle. I know it doesn't seem subtle, but that's the downside of written sarcasm for you.

I understand this was an attempt at humor, but I knew John John before he died, and this is in no way funny. He was a damn good pilot and I still have dire misgivings about the "official" story of how that plane went down

Who the hell mentioned JFK Jr?

I recall a referece to Splash Kennedy

Of course, you could always elect another government, one which takes a less extreme tact on things.

Roughly half a metric shitload of us tried, my good man. :-)

TWL

My oldest daughter ALWAYS has to go through the whole shoe wipe special treatment. So there must be some cute 17 year old red headed terrorist out there. Or they have orders to deliberately go after a certain amount of red heads just to make it look random--the Persian looking members of my family tend to get extra attention as well.

And given the shoddy treatment the airlines have given consumers since day one, you know they are just loving the ability to do it under the protection of national security. Screw 'em. I'll drive. (of course, it helps to have the summer off when you say that).

maybe its been lucky that my state ID (what those of us who don't have a driver's license need to make us 'official') expired and i haven't been able to get a new one since i moved to another state.

my last name is the same as a famous cartoon family that has a new movie coming out soon. I'm sure if i tried to fly they'd hall me off for somehow having a Homer connection;)

Wasn't I O'Reilly enough for you?:-}

Well, I read stuff enough stuff from crazy people who really do write stuff like what you wrote.

Also, I'm honestly not familiar enough with your name & posts to automatically make the assumption of whether something you write is sarcastic or not. :)

Posted by: Tim Lynch

Mike (Weber), I love that story. I wish I had the physical presence to be able to pull something like that off.

Well, i don't any more - at almost 60 (i was somewhere in my mid-30s then) balding and sadly overweight, i doubt i could intimidate anyone much.

And it was, as i said, a dumb thing to do - i could literally hjave gone to prison for aggravated assault.

(Actually, my favourite personal "asshole deterrence through physical intimidation" esperience was the time that Bill Ritch [a name Kathleen will recognise; he's about a full head taller than i am] and i stood at opposite ends of a row in a midnight movie and loomed over the entire row of drunken frat types and their girls...)

Sounds like Wal-Mart :P I get crap like that everyday there but I work there

"He informs me I have no idea who I'm f***ing with, and then heads to the back of the line"

Apparently he was a very dangerous man, with many dangerous connections, since he did well...nothing.

Posted by Scott at July 23, 2007 03:08 PM
Well, I, my father, and brother, have all had to go through extra hassles at airports because terrorism suspects on the "No Fly List" supposedly share our names. I'm Scott Jones. They are both Charles Jones. When you see in the newspaper terrorists arrested, how many of them have been named Jones, anyway?

Only Bugs and Daffy know for sure. :)

"When you see in the newspaper terrorists arrested, how many of them have been named Jones, anyway?"

Talk to people in the midwest, rather than the middle east. Like those people in Indiana.

Just how many archaeology jokes do people living in that state get, I wonder. Or jokes about living in a state named after the dog.

I hear the TSA confiscates Holy Grails at the checkpoint, but you can just buy an Ark of the Covenant from one of the shop and open it right up.

Next time book your flight out of Phoenix. Seems they just kind of prop the door open and leave you to check yourself in at night.
I,m hoping that a major shake-up in this security
B.S. is not far down the road.

Your kung-fu is pretty strong for not physically assaulting a stranger who gets in your wife's face like that, seriously.

I am not inspired with confidence here, considering how much Japanese stuff (including CDs and DVDs) I'll be eventually hauling home. Maybe by the time I return to the States, things will have lightened up a little.

Maybe.

Or maybe I should just ship everything home slow freight...

This has never happened to me, but here's the exchange running through my head at the moment:
Loud Asshole Line-Jumper: "You have no idea who you're f***ing with!"
Me (6'2", 200 pounds, in a deliberately low and even tone): "No, I don't. Why don't you take out some ID and show me, then, big shot?"

Bill Myers: It is also worth noting that he crashed into the ocean and died. Very unfortunate, isn't it? Perhaps his training was not quite up to the challenge. Saying that he was cleared to fly by the FAA is about as persuasive as noting that a high percentage of fatal car crashes involve people with driver's licenses.

His eyes looking at the displays
His hands and feet on the controls
His, His wife's and his sister-in-law's bodies hitting the ocean.
Boom!

If the terrorists really want to mess with us, they should name some of their terrorists, John Smith or Elizabeth Jones. Then imagine all the people that would have to go into the suspected lines.

Posted by mushroomer at July 24, 2007 03:50 PM
If the terrorists really want to mess with us, they should name some of their terrorists, John Smith or Elizabeth Jones. Then imagine all the people that would have to go into the suspected lines.

How about Eric Robert Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh. You would think the line is long enough.....

Jeffrey Frawley: "Saying that he was cleared to fly by the FAA is about as persuasive as noting that a high percentage of fatal car crashes involve people with driver's licenses."

What is or is not persuasive to you is of little consequence to me. That JFK Jr. was considered qualified to fly under the weather conditions prevailing on the night of the fatal crash suggests that his behavior may not have been "reckless." That is worth noting, and therefore I have noted it.

By the way, whatever you think of JFK Jr., you're being awfully crass given that someone claiming to be a former friend/acquaintance of the man's is reading this thread. As someone who holds himself up as the "behavior police" one would think you'd try to adhere to a higher standard of behavior. Even if JFK Jr.'s demise was the result of foolishness, there's no reason to gloat.

For a while there I had this haunting vision of you never leaving the airport:

And the Davids, never leaving, still are pleading, still are pleading...

*Shudder*

Cue the Kingston Trio's rendition of M.T.A

Okay, this is not quite the worst airline story ever, but this is still pretty bad --

On Monday I got up at 3 a.m. in order to make a 6 a.m. flight from Rochester to New York City. While there I joined a couple of colleagues and together we participated in a sales meeting with an executive at one of the accounts to which I am assigned.

My colleagues and I had a brief internal strategy meeting afterwards, and then had lunch. I then proceeded to hail a cab and got one on the second try. I got to Laguardia with time to spare. In all, a really, really good day.

Then my flight back to Rochester disappeared from the monitor at the gate. And then I found out that my flight had been cancelled.

I went to the ticket desk to find a seat on another flight to Rochester. I was informed that ALL flights to Rochester had been cancelled due to weather.

I am told that the weather in Rochester was just peachy, by the way. It was the weather in NYC that was the problem, apparently.

Anyway, I managed to get on a flight to Buffalo, although it was delayed four times and didn't take off until 8:30 Monday evening. I got into Buffalo after 10 p.m. and had to rent a car so I could drive an hour to the Rochester airport -- where I was supposed to go in the first place! -- drop off the rental, get my car, and drive 30 minutes back to my house.

By the time I got home it was nearly 1 a.m. I realized I had been awake for nearly 22 hours. I was unable to fall asleep, mind you, until about 2 a.m.

I called and told the boss I'd be late for work this morning. And I was.

Rob in Japan - Wanted to reply directly, but couldn't find an electronic mail address on your site. Yes, by all means ship yourself the stuff, it's what I do, it saves endless hassles at the airports and borders. I'd recommend the Japanese post office's SAL service which is faster than surface mail, but cheaper than air mail.

One of my neighbors suffers from the same situation of being on the no-fly list. His name is "Jose Rodriguez," which as you can no doubt infer is a fairly common name of Hispanic origin. Every time he goes someplace on an airplane (which is frequently; he travels a lot for his job), he has to go through the same rigamarole. Even at the airports where he regularly flies out of, where the security guys have come to recognize and know him, he still has to go through the entire process (though at places where security recognizes him, the process is significantly expedited). He's been trying to get off the list, to no avail, for something like four years now. Don't even get me started on what one of my other neighbors -an Iranian expatriate and nationalized American citizen- has to go through any time he travels anywhere on a plane... and he's not even ON a no-fly list.
For what it's worth, if airports are found to not properly process their passengers under Homeland Security regulations, they get HUGE fines levied against them. The burden of that security work is usually passed on to the individual airports (many of which don't have the budgets for it) under the rubric of Homeland Security, and that extra work is only lightly suplemented by federal funds. Considering the financial hit almost all airlines have taken post-9/11, budgets are already stretched thin as it is. So be aware that a lot of this frustration is shared by the airport employees who have to enforce the Homeland Security regs with inadequate staff and budgets. To a large degree airports don't want to be doing what they're doing to you, either.

WAY TO COWBOY UP, PAD! You you stand what, five foot something? :-) Guess this means that you'll be flying outta the more busier, more hectic JKF or LaGuardia now. :-D

Later

Big Dee

WAY TO COWBOY UP, PAD!

And you're how tall? Five foot something? :-) And you guys with shouting face-to-face. He must have be vertically challenged as well. :-D

Sorry to hear about your problems. Guess this means that you'll be flying outta the more busier, more hectic JKF or LaGuardia now. :-D

Later

Big Dee

Bill Myers: There's a difference between gloating and declining to worship a person. In any case, I am suspicious of anyone who claims he was a friend of JFK Jr., but who calls him "John John." This was a grown-up, married man aged nearly 39, not the little boy many people remember and would like to think they knew. This grown man had not completed his instrument training and was not rated to fly in low visibility conditions. He crashed into the sea in low visibility conditions, but I suspect being fully competent with instrument flying might have helped with that.

In any case, any joke that starts off by naming Teddy Kennedy and goes on to mock his driving prowess is quite clear: It addresses Teddy Kennedy, and the man's nephew's death is not implied. If the family is due that kind of respect, we'd best not ever discuss strokes, old age, psycho-surgery, World War II, airplanes (many times over), firearms (at least twice), narcotics (very much so), skiing or natural causes (probably a few times). Perhaps we can just murmur the family name and touch our foreheads.

I won't mock "John John," but I do think that while it may be romantic to go out in a blaze of glory - I'd say like James Dean, but his accident was clearly the fault of the other driver - when others are also killed it makes one look more like a jerk and less like a romantic icon.

I'm thinking the similar name is probably Patty Davis.

They stopped Kathleen because, well, you know, Patty and Cathy are sisters.......

(References probably too old, like me, for younger readers to understand.)

Cousins, dammit, not sisters.

References are REALLY hard to get when they are wrong.

Not just cousins, dammit, identical cousins all the way,
One pair of matching bookends, different as night and day.

Just sayin'.

To the question as to "why don't we arrest terrorists if we have a list?" the answer is the list is almost by definition entirely false positives. Homeland Security has a list of a hundred thousand Americans. These are people who have travelled to the Middle East on business, who have participated in events or groups critical of the government, who are related to or who have worked with people convicted of crimes in other countries, who are in the US on expired visas or are otherwise undocumented (or are thought to be undocumented), who have names similar to people who meet the above criteria, and so on. There is no evidence that most of these people are guilty of anything, because if there was anything resembling evidence, they would be arrested.

A small number of people on the list are people for whom the authorities have actual arrest warrants outstanding.

I would not be surprised if Mrs. David was put through this delay purely as harassment initiated by the person they argued with, which is why they hadn't encountered this problem in the past. The reason not to surrender liberties to the government is that the "government" is composed of individuals who may use such powers for their own reasons.

Jeffrey, your ignorance is showing. At least, it's showing to anyone with any kinf od familiarity with VFR classification, or what's called Visual Flight Rules. JFK was trained and experienced to operate, but as anyone with even a few hours of flight experience can tell you, conditions can change rapidly and without warning, expecially in a coastal environment. The decision to depart was in all likelihood a sound one based on the weather forecast when they departed. Unfortunately, weather forecasts cannot predict when a sunset haze will develop that obliterates the abilty to tell where the horizon is. At that point, all a pilot has to rely on is his instruments, and JFK JR was not yet fullt trained in IFR...Instrument Flight Rules. All it takes is a moment's confusion in an aircraft to enter a fatal spin or dive. On the other hand, a slight error in attitude will pitch the nose down in such a gentle dive that the occupants might never notice, and a VFR pilot might not think to check the altimeter until they hit the water.

So, whatever you think about JFK's actions, I'd wager that most folk that hame some idea about it would find your opinion ignorant and unfounded.

As for the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security...just take all those anecdotal stories and think about how the Bush administration wants to uncrease funding for it. It's a cesspool and quagmire of lost tax funds hiding behind a good idea.

Jeffrey Frawley: "[JFK Jr.] was not rated to fly in low visibility conditions."

As I stated earlier, under FAA rules JFK Jr. had the training required to fly in the weather conditions prevailing on the evening of his take-off. Bobb Alfred's description of VFR vs. IFR, and the fact that conditions conducive to flying under VFR can rapidly turn into ones demanding IFR skills, is consistent with experts' comments in all of the T.V. and newspaper reports I saw/read following this tragedy. This plane crash -- and others like it -- is more indicative of a need to re-evaluate FAA rules regarding amateur pilots than it is of any recklessness on JFK Jr.'s part.

By the way, Bobb Alfred, thank you for adding substance to this discussion. (In the future, may I just call you "Bobb?" ;) )

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 24, 2007 10:36 PM
I won't mock "John John,"...

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at July 24, 2007 03:10 PM
His eyes looking at the displays
His hands and feet on the controls
His, His wife's and his sister-in-law's bodies hitting the ocean.
Boom!

No, you would in no way mock him. Can't even begin to see how anyone would think that you were.

For the sake of your friends, loved ones and others close to you, I hope that, God forbid, should anything ever happen to you due to things beyond your ability to deal with that comes about while you're doing something you are able to deal with (say, a freak driving accident) that no one is ever as crass to them as you seem to enjoy being here. Tell me, do you really enjoy being this crass or is it something you just do without knowing that you're doing it?

Jerry Chandler (addressing Jeffrey Frawley): "Tell me, do you really enjoy being this crass or is it something you just do without knowing that you're doing it?"

It's a natural outgrowth of Jeffrey's hubris. He has an over-inflated sense of his importance in the grand scheme of things, as evidenced by this gem, from the "Car Toon" thread:

"If you can find anything in PAD's comment to 'bill' that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied."

As though satisfying Jeffrey Frawley means a damn thing to anyone other than Jeffrey Frawley.

He is quarrelsome and judgmental, and unaware of the limits of his own knowledge.

I'd use just "bobb" here, but there's another bobb...strangly enough, not my dad, which means there's now at least 4 or 5 "bobbs" that I'm aware of...but feel free to just use bobb.

VFR and IFR and meterological conditions are not something everyone's going to be familiar with, so here's an analogy most people can understand.

Most folks know how to drive a car safely. Most folks could even deal with a minor emergency in a car...avoiding a pothole, swerving to miss a child running into the street in front of you, etc. On the other hand, most people that failed to take those emergency corrective actions would not be labled irresponsible if they failed to do so in time.

Then there are instances of just plain accident. Like making a turn onto a one-way street, only to find out that you're going the wrong way. Maybe you weren't familiar with the area, maybe it was a little dark and you didn't see the one-way sign. In most cases, you'll realize the mistake, and correct it. In rare instances, you'll pull in front of a speeding truck and be instantly killed in the head-on collision that you didn't see, couldn't see, and could do nothing to avoid once you turned onto that road. Are you an idiot because you made that mistake while your wife and her sister were in your car?

Most people would say "no," understanding that it's just an accident.

Posted by Alex von Thorn at July 25, 2007 12:17 PM

I would not be surprised if Mrs. David was put through this delay purely as harassment initiated by the person they argued with, which is why they hadn't encountered this problem in the past. The reason not to surrender liberties to the government is that the "government" is composed of individuals who may use such powers for their own reasons.

Do you think someone like that horses @$$ would have that kind of "pull" to be able to instigate such a response?

"If you can find anything in PAD's comment to 'bill' that addressed "the rest of (bill's) comment" - I suppose that would be his belief PAD's animus toward President Bush is reflexive and uncritical - then I'll be satisfied."

Read that last night, and it struck me how there always seems to be someone around here trying to dissect the posts with an electron microscope so that the posts say exactly what the new poster wants it to say when that's usually the farthest from the initial posting's meaning.

And, Bill, I don't know that Jeffrey has an over-inflated sense of his own importance. It usually seems that if anything, he vastly underestimates the intellectual development of they who he is speaking, well, at, since most of his posts are delivered in the manner of either Sermons on the Font or infomercials. At least, that's what it seems to me. To borrow a phrase, your mileage may vary.

Darn it, meant to add this to that last thing.

Pat, while I agree almost completely with what you put in, if anything, I can see that kind of reaction putting said guy on the list, as opposed to Mrs. David.

Posted by Sean Scullion at July 26, 2007 02:11 PM
Darn it, meant to add this to that last thing.

Pat, while I agree almost completely with what you put in, if anything, I can see that kind of reaction putting said guy on the list, as opposed to Mrs. David.

Thats what I was thinking. If there ever was a reason to thoroughly give someone the once over I think @$$ face gave it.

Pat Nolan, @$$face better be careful where he pops off in the future. When I was in Laguardia on Monday I noticed the airport was being patrolled by armed U.S. soldiers. And I ain't talkin' handguns. They were carrying big, bad, mother-effing high-powered rifles.

I don't know when this started, but they weren't there in the spring of this year.

"Sermons on the Font"

That's good. I'm tucking that one away for future use.

Say a silent prayer to Audumbla, Greek goddess of travel, for my safe return from yet another road trip--this time from NY to NC for the weekend (and back again). Audumbla has been pretty slack on the job thus far since my drives to virginia and Montreal have been beset by tire blowouts, traffic jams, and long lines at the border.

It has been brought to my attention that, far from being the Greek Goddess of travel, Audumbla is a giant cow who emerged from the ice in Nifheim at the creation of the world. She saved Ymir, the first of the Frost-Giants, from starving to death with supplies of fresh ice cream from her chilled teats. Well, I feel somewhat foolish at this point.

The Greek god of travel is Hermes, I think. If it isn't, it oughta be -- he was certainly the fast mofo of the pantheon.

(Personally, I've always preferred Hermod, the Norse messenger of Odin. Dude got to ride an eight-legged horse. How cool is that?)

I'm flying out to southern CA next week for a conference; I'm hoping a lot of these horror stories don't materialize, but plan on bringing a LOT of reading material just in case...

TWL

Bill Mulligan, I left a message with someone at the number you gave me just a minute ago. Now I am going to have you put on a "no-fly" list.

(Hopefully that last part will allow me to camouflage that personal message as something related to the topic.)

Tim Lynch -- airports are a tangled mess of arcane rules and incredibly complicated government and private-sector bureaucracies, now with the extra-added entanglements of under-funded and badly executed anti-terrorism efforts.

What I'm saying is -- what could possibly go wrong with such a system???

Tim, Ihope you don't mind me barging in, but to answer Friend Myers--all that you spoke about, plus they who are among the under-funded, running into a guy, nice though he is, named Lynch? I can unfortunately see them becoming an unruly mob.

Bad choice of words, that.

Hmm. A tangled mess of arcane rules, overly complicated, using words and phrases that no one in their right mind understands---

My god, the wizards are running the airports!

(btw, Tim, I hope it all goes smoothly for ya. Thinking of Hermod always reminds me of the Witchsmeller episode of Black Adder. "Out in Cornwall, someone saw a horse with two heads and eight legs!" "Two horses, standing next to each other?")

Tim, Ihope you don't mind me barging in, but to answer Friend Myers--all that you spoke about, plus they who are among the under-funded, running into a guy, nice though he is, named Lynch? I can unfortunately see them becoming an unruly mob.

Bad choice of words, that.

Hmm. A tangled mess of arcane rules, overly complicated, using words and phrases that no one in their right mind understands---

My god, the wizards are running the airports!

(btw, Tim, I hope it all goes smoothly for ya. Thinking of Hermod always reminds me of the Witchsmeller episode of Black Adder. "Out in Cornwall, someone saw a horse with two heads and eight legs!" "Two horses, standing next to each other?")

(btw, Tim, I hope it all goes smoothly for ya. Thinking of Hermod always reminds me of the Witchsmeller episode of Black Adder. "Out in Cornwall, someone saw a horse with two heads and eight legs!" "Two horses, standing next to each other?")

PT Barnum advertized "A horse with his head where his tail should be"

It was a horse with his tail tied to a post.

Barnum also had the famous "Cherry colored cat" which was a perfectly ordinary black cat, the color of black cherries.

You could get away with all manner of clever shit back then.

Apparently JFK Jr. believed he was capable of flying under the circumstances. Most definitely he flew into the ocean, killing himself, which was his own business, and two others, which made him a jackass. He was qualified to fly under clear conditions, but not the conditions he found himself in. If conditions necessitate instrument flying, it is a damned good idea to know how to do that and to have the certification to prove it.

Bill Myers: If it is so offensive to you that someone should care for his own opinion, just why is it that you feel like expressing your own? Sometime last year PAD stated authoritatively that no one ever convinced anyone of anything. I hope that he would not repeat that now, because it tends to undercut this whole business of blogging and expressing oneself. A truly solipsist view suggests one should just close one's eyes and thing to oneself of oneself, rather than discussing matters with other people. Bill, I would be surprised if you have never had your mind changed by someone else's arguments, but I suppose it's possible.

Jeffrey, you're just plain wrong. He wasn't qualified to fly under "clear" conditions. He was quaified to fly under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. From my understanding of the report, conditions on that day were "clear." The problem was that the horizon lacked definition, and without that reference, any pilot not rated on instruments might have difficulty maintaining a level orientation.

Or in other words, flying ain't "like dusting crops, boy."

It's not just JFK JR that thought he was trained for that day's conditions...it's every other pilot, the FAA, and a good number of people that don't know any more than the official reports. He wasn't drinking, he wasn't being reckless or careless. He was unlucky. Accidents do happen, and not everything is always someone's fault.

So, is it the fact that others were in the plane with him and were also killed that makes him a jackass?

Jeffrey Frawley: "If it is so offensive to you that someone should care for his own opinion, just why is it that you feel like expressing your own?"

I didn't criticize you for expressing an opinion. I criticized you being excessively judgmental and unnecessarily quarrelsome. There is a difference.

Jeffrey Frawley: "Bill, I would be surprised if you have never had your mind changed by someone else's arguments, but I suppose it's possible."

It's more than possible. It's happened in this very blog numerous times and remains on record for all to see.

These airport horror stories certainly hit home. My husband and I are always 'selected' for 'special processing' when we fly. We ended up on someone's watch list -- Alex is quite right about the government being composed of individuals who use whatever power they have for their own reasons.

I think it started in March 2005 when we made the very, very serious mistake of trying to convince airline employees to behave like reasonable people. We were leaving NJ after my mother-in-law's funeral and were in Newark Airport, trying to catch our plane to Chicago in order to get a connecting flight to St Louis. Unfortunately, the flight from Newark originated at Logan; it was delayed because of bad weather; and when it arrived we weren't allowed to board because...the delayed flight MIGHT get us to Chicago too late to make our connecting flight. The ticket agent told us we would have to wait until the next day to fly into Chicago, but we wouldn't be charged anything.

My husband asked the perfectly reasonable question: "Why can't we fly to Chicago tonight, take our chances with catching the connecting flight and if we miss it, you can put us on the flight to St Louis THAT WE WOULD BE TAKING ANYWAY IF WE STAY IN NEWARK?"

They wouldn't do this and my husband got very upset. Bear in mind that (1) it was late (2) it was cold (3) we had just turned in our rental car so finding a place to stay would be difficult (4) the ticket agents spoke very little English -- and, of course, there was no supervisor available.

This was on top of the emotional stress he was feeling, having just BURIED HIS MOTHER.

Anyway, the ticket agents called security, all of a sudden we were surrounded by about 8 or 9 security guards who spent the rest of the night just kind of hanging around the AirTrans counter because we spent the rest of the night sleeping in Newark Airport.

The next flight to Chicago was at 5 a.m. we are in the line bright and early -- and get pulled out of line for us and our luggage to be thoroughly searched. (Us and a couple of Pakistani businessmen ... so I'm sure the process is completely random.) I guess the ticket agents, security people and TSA people work together to protect our nation's airways from....middle-aged people with bad tempers.

This was only the beginning...on another flight to NJ from St Louis, I decided at the last minute to check my carry-on. I am a book editor and there was a manuscript in the bag that I was working on. It was on dengue and other hemorrhagic diseases. I'm sure you can guess what happened next -- the TSA searched my bag and pegged me as a bioterrorist. (I don't believe any of them actually understood what they were reading; just seeing certain 'hot button' words was probably enough.)

They held my bag for four days and went through it thoroughly. The manuscript was completely out of order and all my things were tossed around. By the time they saw fit to give it back I had left NJ and was back in Missouri. To be fair, they did make the effort to get it back to me -- it followed me cross country (it went via Richmond, VA for some reason, while I went via Chicago) and I eventually got it back.

However, since then I have been a 'person of interest' every time I fly.

Remember when TSA was going to replace all those security folks at the airports? Well,they did...in large part, with the same folks already working at the airport. For the most part, there's been no improvement in the quality of our security checks, because it's the same people that were doing the work that allowed the 9/11 terrorists to get on board.

Instead of doing something that makes sense...providing training and funding to pay people to do a better job...TSA attempts to implement policies and procedures designed to catch security risks. The folks working security at airports are underpaid and overworked. It's a tedious job, and they don't get enough breaks to keep them fresh.

And as alluded to by Lucy, they are people, meaning some of them can and do abuse their position if you piss them off.

Bill, I would be surprised if you have never had your mind changed by someone else's arguments, but I suppose it's possible.

Prepare to be surprised. Bill Myers is one of the folks I would consider MOST likely to alter his views based on good arguments to the contrary. There are those who would consider such a thing to be threatening to their self esteem. Bill ain't one of them.

Has everyone been following the news of suspicious incidents of people bringing weird crap on board? Cheese wrapped in wires with batteries stuffed in them, that sort of thing. Barring the possibility of new cheese technology of which I have been somehow remiss in hearing about, it sounds an awful lot like they are trying to see what kind of stuff they can smuggle on board.

As much as I like cheese, nothing beats a nice port wine after a long day, having my cheese assimilated doesn't sound like it'd at to the enjoyment factor. This having been said, I have been known to both bring my own cheese places and request it as gifts. However, taking it traveling isn't very often in my plans. Something about walking up to a counter, being it customs or otherwise, and saying, "Well, here's my cheese" just doesn't seem to fit the low profile aspect you'd think they'd go for. If anything, people wouldn't want to do that to avoid the "Please don't cut this on the plane" statements. Also, barring dairy farmers, Kraft executives and they who call Cheddar home most people don't go around hauling chunks of cheese. Much to many rodents chagrin, I'd imagine. But then, there are also people who've tried lighting their shoes up in the processed atmosphere of a jetliner, so maybe they think, like Reese's cup, throw two things together and no one'll notice.

BTW, sorry for this, that first line should be babble babble, try to be witty, babble ADD to the enjoyment factor.

Also, having checked through some articles about the threat posed by either Roboswiss or Locutthecheese of Borg, they reported that the baggage checkers were issued a memo to watch for suspicious items that could be a bomb. Funny, I thought that's what they were THERE for.

Bobb Alfred: Without any effort to be clever, yes, it was because he killed two other people because he overestimated his competence to fly that I think he was a jackass. When you go out "in a blaze of glory" by yourself, some people find it romantic. When your arrogance kills two other people, you're an incompetent moron. When one takes other people's lives in one's hands one should use due caution. Were the weather conditions that JFK Jr. faced foreseeable? Yes, they were. Was he qualified to fly in them? No, he was not. Did that make one bit of difference to him? I don't know, but perhaps not, considering that he flew them into the Atlantic Ocean. I am quite suspicious of anyone who thinks he is so important that common sense is beneath him. Unfortunately, that is very common in his family.

"Visual Flight Rules" (VFR): I will stipulate that he met the minimum standards for flying in such conditions. Now I ask, what conditions did he fly under, and weren't they completely foreseeable? Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister's husband's father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head? She is dead because her brother in law thought he knew how to fly.

Jeffrey--look, there seems to be little question that Kennedy made a reckless decision that cost him his life and that of his family. That said, what benefit is there in trashing the guy? He was not a malicious guy, he seemed decent enough for someone who grew up under a microscope.

Make fun of Teddy all you want; he's earned it and more. Kicking JFK Jr just seems small, even if it can be argued that it is justified.

Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister's husband's father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?

Good God man. Listen to yourself.

Jeffrey Frawley: "When you go out 'in a blaze of glory' by yourself, some people find it romantic."

I don't recall anyone characterizing JFK Jr.'s death as a "blaze of glory" nor anything "romantic." People expressed grief and sadness because an untimely passing is a sad event.

Jeffrey Frawley: "When your arrogance kills two other people, you're an incompetent moron."

It is not arrogant to fly a plane under conditions you've been told by authorities you're qualified to fly under.

Jeffrey Frawley: "Were the weather conditions that JFK Jr. faced foreseeable? Yes, they were."

False. According to the Washington Post, "...the weather did not appear to be 'iffy.' Despite the haze, the National Weather Service's aviation weather observation at the apparent time of the crash was listed as eight miles visibility and clear. Conditions also did not appear conducive to fog. The weather observation offered no special remarks suggesting dangerous weather."

Jeffrey Frawley: "Was he qualified to fly in them? No, he was not."

Also false. Phil Boyer, President
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, testified before Congress that "...there were thousands of successful VFR flights last Friday night [the night of Kennedy's plane crash] including some into Martha's Vineyard." He also testified that "the Federal Aviation Administration substantially stiffened the requirements for night flight privileges two years ago in August of 1997 and we understand that Mr. Kennedy was certificated under these new regulations. These improvements in training and certification should equip VFR-rated pilots with the skills and judgment to make night flying safe."

Your condemnation of JFK Jr. is in no way supported by the known facts surrounding his fatal plane crash.

Bill Mulligan: "Jeffrey--look, there seems to be little question that Kennedy made a reckless decision..."

Actually, for the reasons articulated in my prior post, there is in fact little question that JFK Jr. did not make a reckless decision.

Jeffrey,

Give up while you're ahead. And by ahead, I in no way mean ahead in the debate on this subject. Stop while there are still some people here who haven't re-listed you in their mental rolodex under "crass, worthless, nasty little troll." Myers has had you on his $H!* list for quite some time now. That's not likely to change any time soon, but others here haven't held you on their $H!* lists in the same way. No one here is going to actively shun you for honest opinions expressed, but why seemingly work to alienate others by trying to sink to levels reserved for the Mike's, X-Ray's and Dee's of this blog's history?

You've made repeated statements that seem completely unrelated to what anyone here has said.

"There's a difference between gloating and declining to worship a person."

"... while it may be romantic to go out in a blaze of glory..."

No one here has stated anything like idol worship and no one but you keeps bringing up the whole romantic blaze of glory thing. You've also seemed to have ramped up the level of viciousness in your posted after joe stated that he know the man before his death. I can't prove that joe knew the guy anymore then you can prove that he didn't, but what's the point in trying to be even more crass after joe's post? What, you were hoping that, just in case joe really did know the man, you could inflict just that little extra bit of pain into his life?

You've also made several statements that do not hold up to the facts of the case. Still, in the purely opinion realm, you didn't/don't like the man. It's 100% your right to not like the man and to say so. We get that. But why keep going the extra distance, why keep making the extra effort of seeming to try to be as crass as you can and more then a little, well, as quoted here, bizarre?

"Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister's husband's father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?"

???????????? Oooooooooooookay.

The man is dead and you don't like him. Ok, we got it. Can we finish with the kicking the dead, poking at the acquaintances of the dead and making really out there statements and move on now? I mean, what do you have to gain or hope to gain by being this unnecessarily disrespectful to the dead and those that may have known him in a forum that is more often then not populated by posters who don't crave that level of crassness and incivility?

No, you would in no way mock him. Can't even begin to see how anyone would think that you were....

That's not likely to change any time soon, but others here haven't held you on their $H!* lists in the same way. No one here is going to actively shun you for honest opinions expressed, but why seemingly work to alienate others by trying to sink to levels reserved for the Mike's, X-Ray's and Dee's of this blog's history?

Who's death did I exult in? How does your portraying me so severely not qualify as arbitrary?

With as little sleep as you must be getting, the arousal I inspire in you must be formidable.

No, you would in no way mock him. Can't even begin to see how anyone would think that you were....

That's not likely to change any time soon, but others here haven't held you on their $H!* lists in the same way. No one here is going to actively shun you for honest opinions expressed, but why seemingly work to alienate others by trying to sink to levels reserved for the Mike's, X-Ray's and Dee's of this blog's history?

Who's death did I exult in?

With as little sleep as you must be getting, you still can't stop thinking about me. All I'm left to imagine is that the arousal I inspire in you must be formidable.

Jerry's not saying that you, specifically, exulted in anyone's death, Mike. What he IS saying, however, is that some your previous posts have been, at the most generous, needlessly combative and repetitive. Now, the repetitve isn't a jab at the fact that your response was posted twice. But, for all your argumentativeness and the overapplication of paste which has often led me to wonder if your elementary school art department was woefully undersupplied, you've never to my knowledge exulted in anyone's death. So, I hope that answers the "whose death" question.

No, you would in no way mock him. Can't even begin to see how anyone would think that you were....

That's not likely to change any time soon, but others here haven't held you on their $H!* lists in the same way. No one here is going to actively shun you for honest opinions expressed, but why seemingly work to alienate others by trying to sink to levels reserved for the Mike's, X-Ray's and Dee's of this blog's history?

Jerry's not saying that you, specifically, exulted in anyone's death, Mike. What he IS saying, however, is that some your previous posts have been, at the most generous, needlessly combative and repetitive.

...by portraying me as worse than someone who exulted in someone death.

repeating a relevant point = shitlist
exulting in someone's death ≠ shitlist

By quoting what has been said before, I am accommodating the half-dozen or so complaints that inevitably crop up what I say is incomprehensible. That which I repeat no one complains is incomprehensible. Therefore I repeat my points any given response of mine depends on. It ain't Rocket Surgery, Sean Scullion -- and I'll repeat this again if (when) you demonstrate you've forgotten it.

If you don't like it, you can assist me by addressing those complaints what I say is incomprehensible -- by confirming what I say is reasonable and clear to you when those complaints arise again. If not, or unless you want to deny people are complaining they can't understand what I say, you have no call to complain about me simply serving my own self-interest. What is your beef against someone simply serving his own self-interest?

You almost get the feeling that Mike is getting worried that Jeffrey will take his place as Official Idiot of the Peter David Blog. Uneasy is the head upon which lies the crown...

Actually, for the reasons articulated in my prior post, there is in fact little question that JFK Jr. did not make a reckless decision.

Given what you posted, I take it back. I was relying mostly on the Wiki entry and on the personal opinion of a flying friend (but that's obviously hearsay, valid or not). The wiki bit makes it sound like a clear error in judgment but you've made that conclusion far less clear.

I see no value in tearing JFK Jr down. He is not worshiped, he has no political following, he does not influence policy...what is gained?

You unambiguously witness Bill Mulligan literally cannot disqualify what I say. With Great Passive-Aggression Comes Great Irresponsibility.™

I don't think Mike needs to worry about that. He has a tremendous gift at maintaining his standing there.

It's interesting that many here blast me for thinking JFK Jr's deficiencies as a pilot caused three preventable deaths, but no one finds any fault in the analogy of driving the wrong way down a one way street into a head-on crash. No matter what you may think, the accident investigators will have little trouble assigning fault there. It may be useful advice to someone here: Don't drive into any road if you do not know which direction it goes. This isn't optional, and your heirs will find that significant when they try to collect your insurance, or when they are faced with your liability. It is a fact that JFK Jr. was not instrument certified, not a matter of debate. It is also a fact that the abilities he was missing would have proved useful in avoiding his death. It is also a fact that virtually all of the commentary here has focused on how sad it was that he died, and a fact that he was only 33.333% of the casualties that day. He flew into the ocean, taking two people with him. Oh...let's be more sensitive to him!! The argument that he was certified to fly under the conditions prevailing when he took off proves very little. By that thinking, almost all automobile accidents would be written off as "Hey, he had a driver's license, so shut up about the speeding down the wrong side of the road with no lights. He had a driver's license, didn't you hear? Let's have a little sympathy for that smudge on the road, and let's stop talking about the passengers: He had a damned driver's license, and that's all that matters!"

"The ticket agent told us we would have to wait until the next day to fly into Chicago, but we wouldn't be charged anything.

My husband asked the perfectly reasonable question: "Why can't we fly to Chicago tonight, take our chances with catching the connecting flight and if we miss it, you can put us on the flight to St Louis THAT WE WOULD BE TAKING ANYWAY IF WE STAY IN NEWARK?"

They wouldn't do this and my husband got very upset. Bear in mind that (1) it was late (2) it was cold (3) we had just turned in our rental car so finding a place to stay would be difficult (4) the ticket agents spoke very little English -- and, of course, there was no supervisor available."

Actually, Lucy (without endeavoring to excuse all the crap you had to endure) I think I can field that one. FAA regs mandate that airlines must allow a minimum of (I believe it's) twenty five minutes for a passenger to make a connection. That is to say, they can't schedule a connecting flight closer than twenty-five minutes since that's considered the bare minimum required for making a connection. (And as someone who once was given that bare minimum in changing planes at Chicago O'Hare--where I literally had to sprint from one end of one terminal to the opposite end of another terminal and made it just as they were preparing to close the doors because God forbid they would hold it for thirty seconds--I can tell you that minimum is BS).

Anyway, it's possible that their computers were locked into that FAA restriction and--with the revised ETAs due to weather--literally wouldn't permit them to issue tickets or boarding passes because the twenty five minute window didn't exist. Or perhaps they were simply operating under that mandate, although why the hell someone couldn't simply TELL you that (limited English notwithstanding) is beyond me.

PAD

Thank you, Peter, for clearing that up for me. Staying overnight in Newark airport would have been unpleasant under any circumstances but KNOWING the reason why we couldn't get on the flight we were scheduled to take would have allieviated some of the stress!

Jeffrey Frawley: "It's interesting that many here blast me for thinking JFK Jr's deficiencies as a pilot caused three preventable deaths..."

You may find it "interesting" that some of us are criticizing you, but it's also appropriate. Your assertion that JFK Jr. was "reckless" is baseless.

Jeffrey Frawley: "...but no one finds any fault in the analogy of driving the wrong way down a one way street into a head-on crash."

That's false. I find fault with your analogy. I just didn't address it because I had hoped you might be swayed by the facts.

Your analogy is inappropriate because it doesn't take into account weather conditions. A better analogy would be that of a somewhat inexperienced driver who suddenly experiences unexpectedly difficult driving conditions and makes a mistake that a more experienced driver might not have made. The reasonable conclusion would be that this young driver hit the baddest of bad luck, not that he was "reckless."

Jeffrey Frawley: "It is a fact that JFK Jr. was not instrument certified, not a matter of debate."

It is also not a fact that supports your accusations of "recklessness," which are founded on a single false premise: that JFK Jr. should have known he wasn't qualified to fly under such conditions. I reiterate: the weather conditions on the night of his death were considered suitable for pilots with Visual Flight Rules training, which JFK Jr. had successfully completed.

Jeffrey Frawley: "It is also a fact that the abilities he was missing would have proved useful in avoiding his death."

Nevertheless, your accusations of recklessness are still baseless. According to an article posted on Salon.com by Phaedra Hise, a freelance writer and experienced pilot, JFK Jr. was quite familiar with the route from Teterboro, N.J., to Nantucket, MA. He'd flown that route 35 times, including 17 as pilot-in-command and 5 at night. It's true that Kennedy lacked experience flying alone at night but it is equally true that the only way to gain experience flying solo at night is to, y'know, fly solo at night.

According to Hise, "Dunning Kennedy for his inability to survive aviation's No. 1 killer is ridiculous. I don't know a single pilot who could cast the first stone. We've all pulled up after a sweaty landing, shivering and mumbling, 'Damn, I'll never do that again.' We've all broken at least one FAA regulation. We've all made the wrong go/no-go decision and ended up bumping around too close to a storm cloud, wishing instead we had turned around and driven home from the airport."

Jeffrey Frawley: "It is also a fact that virtually all of the commentary here has focused on how sad it was that he died, and a fact that he was only 33.333% of the casualties that day."

That's a false assertion -- and a one that's a bit odd, given that the very evidence demonstrating its falsity is right here in this very thread where you're posting. bobb alfred and I have both written relatively lengthy posts citing verifiable facts that demonstrate your accusations of recklessness have no factual basis.

Jeffrey Frawley: "'He had a damned driver's license, and that's all that matters!'"

It does if the argument is whether or not the decision to drive was a "reckless" one based on the driver's lack of qualifications.

It is true that the NTSB concluded that "pilot error" was to blame for JFK Jr.'s fatal crash. It is equally true that not all human error is "reckless," even if that error was fatal.

I can empathize with those who grieve for JFK Jr., even if "pilot error" was the cause of his fatal crash. I know of no one who hasn't made a dumb mistake that could've ended his or her life but for blind luck going his or her way. And one action does not comprise the totality of a person. JFK Jr. was a human being, possessing both flaws and virtues. I know of no reason to believe the former significantly outweighed the latter in his case.

The tendency to hate those who have more worldly success than oneself is part of the human condition, and I believe it to be at the root of your condemnations of JFK Jr. After all, those condemnations are certainly not rooted in the facts.

The ability to reason, however, is also a part of the human condition and means we do not have to give in to the aforementioned tendency. One can choose instead to act more rationally. This is why many of us are condemning you: you are choosing hatred over rational thought.

Bill Mulligan: "Has everyone been following the news of suspicious incidents of people bringing weird crap on board? Cheese wrapped in wires with batteries stuffed in them, that sort of thing."

Bill, as we discussed on the phone Thursday evening, it's about time that we as a nation begin investing in the electronification of cheese. Why, just the other night I was enjoying some fine smoked gouda and a bottle of Pinot Noir when it occurred to me, "Wouldn't this cheese be so much better if was electronic?"

Computerized cheese, after all, could warn us before it goes bad. It could let us know what foods and wines go best with it. It could also keep the lonely company by playing the lovely song stylings of Zamfir, the pan flute virtuoso.

I fear, however, that you are correct that passengers bringing, or attempting to bring, cheese wrapped in wires with batteries stuffed in side are in fact not trying to take the next logical step in cheese technology. It is more likely that they are making dry runs to see what they can get past airport security.

Our latest intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda has largely fled Afghanistan and is now sheltered by tribes in outlying areas of Pakistan that are sympathetic to Jihadists. Because Pakistan is considered a necessary ally in the war on terror, our ability to get at Al Qaeda has now been diminished. Unsurprisingly, the terrorist organization is believed to be far stronger than in years past. And a senior intelligence official stated on "Meet the Press" that while he doesn't know of any Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the U.S., he fears there may be some.

Ultimately, I understand the necessity of heightened security measures at our airports. I'm willing to put up with inconveniences if in exchange I will be safer. I very much doubt, however, that hassling people like Kathleen will in any way result in a safer nation.

"Our latest intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda has largely fled Afghanistan and is now sheltered by tribes in outlying areas of Pakistan that are sympathetic to Jihadists. Because Pakistan is considered a necessary ally in the war on terror, our ability to get at Al Qaeda has now been diminished. Unsurprisingly, the terrorist organization is believed to be far stronger than in years past. And a senior intelligence official stated on "Meet the Press" that while he doesn't know of any Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the U.S., he fears there may be some."

The really scary thing here is the possibility that Pakistan will fall into the hands of Al-Quida. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

When your arrogance kills two other people, you're an incompetent moron.

Jeffrey, since you're going to jump me (as if you didn't flee from me in the Transformers thread): how does your ridicule of JFK Jr not apply a thousandfold to George W Bush -- whom, with no sense of irony, you defended from phantom ridicule?

Ah, perhaps Bill has in fact struck on that diabolical Zamfir's plot! What, you people didn't know he was a dairy farmer? Strike at the lonely of America, and we know who we are, and then suddenly we're all blowing into tubes during late night matinee ads as our milk curdles or whatever milk does to be made into cheese.

(Y'know, last time I heard a plan like that there were a pair of mice involved. Zort!)

(Okay, Pinky and the Brain meet up with the Hitchiker's Guide mice. Who makes the better cup of tea, and who makes the better computer?)

Trouble with Bill's theory, and I agree with it to a specific point, is that hassling people like Kathleen instead of just the ones who look suspicious or slimy or some other s word is that pretty soon, all the terror people will figger out that "Hey, if I'm NICE, I don't get hassled!"

Bill Myers: If you're going to criticize the wrong way down an alley analogy, you should be aware that Bobb Alfred came up with that one. He used it to refer to something that was "just an accident." I disagree with it, because it actually illustrates something that is not at all just an accident. As far as I can see, your criticism of the analogy is, perhaps with the exception of my own, the very first such criticism of it, a week later. There's been quite a bit of outrage at my suggestion that pilot error and overconfidence of one's abilities brought about JFK Jr.'s and two other deaths. So, isn't it fascinating that a demonstrably faulty analogy brought no disagreement, while the suggestion that pilot error just might be the fault of the pilot (a somewhat less easily disproved suggestion) gave people the vapors? Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.

Mike: I doubt I have ever defended GWB, with irony or not, from phantom, substantial or otherwise ridicule. Most likely you are referring to my acceptance of the idea that PAD is reflexively anti-Bush. Whether or not that is true, I would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing. Let's see if I can do a little better with analogy than Bill Myers thinks I do:

Suppose you came across a smelly pile of horse dung every morning when you walked - wherever it is you walk. Suppose that happened for nearly seven years, and then one morning you had the wind behind you when you walked, and then, right in front of you, downwind, you found an extra-tall pile of horse dung. Without the benefit of smelling it, I would forgive you if you presumed it smelled like shit. That's a pretty good defense of reflexive anti-Bushism.

Jeffrey Frawley: "If you're going to criticize the wrong way down an alley analogy, you should be aware that Bobb Alfred came up with that one."

Yes, I now realize I incorrectly attributed the analogy to you when it was in fact bobb alfred's.
That doesn't alter the known facts surrounding the JFK Jr.'s fatal plane crash -- facts that do not support your thesis.

Jeffrey Frawley: "There's been quite a bit of outrage at my suggestion that pilot error and overconfidence of one's abilities brought about JFK Jr.'s and two other deaths."

You're conflating two separate issues. The first issue is whether or not your accusations of recklessness are justified. They are not.

The second issue is whether it is proper to be glib about an untimely death, even if poor judgment caused it. The answer is a resounding "no."

Jeffrey Frawley: "...the suggestion that pilot error just might be the fault of the pilot (a somewhat less easily disproved suggestion) gave people the vapors?"

Actually, your suggestion isn't "somewhat less easily disproved." I have disproved it, beyond a doubt.

Moreover, you can try to dismiss a commitment to accuracy, logic, and truth as a case of "the vapors," but your dismissive attitude changes nothing.

Jeffrey Frawley: "Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince."

It is becoming abundantly apparent that you have made up your mind, and will ignore any facts that do not support your preconceived notions. That is most unfortunate. I nevertheless hold out the hope that in responding to you I have reached those who value accuracy, logic, and truth -- just as others who clearly value those things have reached me in the past.

I just re-read my last post and realized that Jeffrey Frawley tripped me up. The idea that "pilot error" is the "fault of the pilot" is indeed difficult to refute -- because an error on the part of the pilot is, by definition, the pilot's fault.

Nevertheless, this isn't the issue being debated. The issue is whether Jeffrey was correct in accusing JFK Jr. of being reckless. That assertion I have indeed disproven beyond a doubt. JFK Jr. without a doubt had more than "the bare minimum" qualifications to fly under the conditions prevailing on the night of his death.

If the facts are not enough to sway you, however, Jeffrey, nothing will be. For that reason, I believe I will make this my last word on this issue. There are only so many ways to explain that two and two is four. If someone stubbornly insists that two and two is five despite all evidence to the contrary, there is little value in continuing to explain to them that they are wrong.

Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.

Honestly, why the venom? If JFK Jr. was undeserving of all the fame and attention given him...so what? This and the "immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head" bit make it clear you don't like the Kennedys. Fine. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. But when you phrase it in such crude and, frankly, mean-spirited ways, it only makes people sympathetic to them and hurts whatever point you intended. It's one reason why Bush was able to win a second term despite the misgivings of many people who ultimately voted for him--too many of his opponents made themselves look bad.

I suppose such statements could have value if you value just shocking or upsetting people, especially political opponents--the attacks from both right and left on Hillary are sometimes obviously more to attack her supporters than to make an actual point--but neither JFK nor his son are in any position to influence politics so it seems more likely that anyone objecting to your points is doing so out of a belief that they violate common decency, not because of any fealty to "the little prince".

how does your ridicule of JFK Jr not apply a thousandfold to George W Bush -- whom, with no sense of irony, you defended from phantom ridicule?

Mike: I doubt I have ever defended GWB, with irony or not, from phantom, substantial or otherwise ridicule. Most likely you are referring to my acceptance of the idea that PAD is reflexively anti-Bush. Whether or not that is true, I would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing.

Your acceptance has no basis in reality. An alternative explanation for Peter's reaction was provided, Peter confirmed it -- and you felt like denying it. You may claim you would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing, but your arbitrary denial of Peter's own account had no virtue except to shelter Bush.

There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. But when you phrase it in such crude and, frankly, mean-spirited ways, it only makes people sympathetic to them and hurts whatever point you intended. It's one reason why Bush was able to win a second term despite the misgivings of many people who ultimately voted for him--too many of his opponents made themselves look bad.

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?

I'm not sure that statement means what you think it does. Or it's just badly worded. It seems to be saying that you think I'm saying that George Bush never benefited from stupid attacks from his opponents. That's sort of the exact opposite of what I said...so I guess this was an attempt at humor. Are you sure it's reason you are distilling to a heretofore unknown purity?

At any rate, it's hard to rationally deny that Bush has benefited from the craziness of his most nutty opponents (Bill Clinton also benefited from such people). One may well ask why it is that these aforementioned nuts are given so much attention, taking away valuable time from more rational critics.

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?

I'm not sure that statement means what you think it does. Or it's just badly worded. It seems to be saying that you think I'm saying that George Bush never benefited from stupid attacks from his opponents. That's sort of the exact opposite of what I said...so I guess this was an attempt at humor. Are you sure it's reason you are distilling to a heretofore unknown purity?

In order for your strawman to be true, I would have to have said, "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?"

Did you miss the days of school where they taught "of" and "by?"

Just not smart enough to understand your distilled genius, Mike. I'm still not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. It's not the by or of. Doesn't "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?" mean "Who knew George Bush never benefited from ridicule?" Again, isn't that the exact opposite of what I said? What are you trying to convey here?

Also not sure what the strawman argument is...unless it's you replacing "opponents" with "democrats". Even a dullard should know that not all of Bush's opposition comes from Democrats.

Doesn't "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?" mean "Who knew George Bush never benefited from ridicule?"

Only if you missed the day of school they taught how to qualify a noun with a prepositional phrase.

Also not sure what the strawman argument is...unless it's you replacing "opponents" with "democrats". Even a dullard should know that not all of Bush's opposition comes from Democrats.

The strawman is that portion of your post that only makes sense if I had said, "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?" which is "It seems to be saying that you think I'm saying that George Bush never benefited from stupid attacks from his opponents."

Of course, calling your statement a strawman gives you credit for knowing the difference between "of" and "by" before you've responded to my question. If you were to admit to not knowing the difference between "of" and "by," that would disqualify your statement as a strawman, and qualify it as simply wrong.

Either way, nothing I've said depends on any blurring of the distinction between "democrats" and "Bush opponents."

Mike, I won't attempt to unravel your prose, because that would be impossible. I'll do something much easier. You seem to believe I defended GWB against "phantom ridicule" (whatever that is), by accepting the proposition that PAD might be reflexively hostile to him. Now, whether or not that is true has nothing to do with GWB. Try this: Suppose we were discussing whether or not Mussolini was a buffoon, and I accepted the proposition that you were dangerously insane. Now suppose we had the same discussion but I did not accept that proposition. What has changed regarding Mussolini's buffoonery? Whether PAD trusts, distrusts, loves or hates GWB is relevant to judging his own viewpoint, but it has nothing to do with GWB's. After all, I'm sure there were many people who disliked Hitler without the need to hear his latest speech, but that is no defense of him.

how does your ridicule of JFK Jr not apply a thousandfold to George W Bush -- whom, with no sense of irony, you defended from phantom ridicule?

Mike: I doubt I have ever defended GWB, with irony or not, from phantom, substantial or otherwise ridicule. Most likely you are referring to my acceptance of the idea that PAD is reflexively anti-Bush. Whether or not that is true, I would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing.

Your acceptance has no basis in reality. An alternative explanation for Peter's reaction was provided, Peter confirmed it -- and you felt like denying it. You may claim you would never suggest that anti-Bushism is a bad or unwise thing, but your arbitrary denial of Peter's own account had no virtue except to shelter Bush.

Mike, I won't attempt to unravel your prose, because that would be impossible. I'll do something much easier. You seem to believe I defended GWB against "phantom ridicule" (whatever that is)...

You are Reiterating™ your citation of a vaguery I've already provided a response to. Speaking of reiteration, have you turned in your Spontaneous Society decoder ring?

...by accepting the proposition that PAD might be reflexively hostile to him. Now, whether or not that is true has nothing to do with GWB.

It's relevant to your selective application of principle, between ridiculing JFK Jr for losing two innocent lives from his arrogance, and defending George W Bush who is guilty of the same over a thousandfold.

Try this:

1. Suppose we were discussing whether or not Mussolini was a buffoon, and I accepted the proposition that you were dangerously insane.
2. Now suppose we had the same discussion but I did not accept that proposition.

...

You mean like Bearded Mike and Jeffrey™ from a mirror-mirror universe? Why not suppose your bearded counterpart defending JFK Jr instead of ridiculing him? What is the relevance of divergent discussions taking place in parallel universes?

Only if you missed the day of school they taught how to qualify a noun with a prepositional phrase.

The fact that you can't explain what you were trying to convey with that sentence is answer enough. Insults from you on deficiencies in grammar hurt about as much as being called ugly by a frog or nutty by...well...

I wasn't aware that your "question" was a serious question to which you expected an answer. So in response to "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" I can only say that I do not know anyone who knew that George Bush did not benefit from the attacks of some of his opponents. Like most politicians, he has benefited from those who go too far in their criticism (there's a strong element of narcissism in many of the crazier elements of the right and left wing--it's all about them, they really don't care about the issues or how there words will be used--See An Coulter, Ward Churchill, etc). Of course, the fact that we live in the internet age has allowed the crazies to reach more people and turn them off, which is why Clinton and Bush have been the two presidents to benefit the most from this. I expect Hillary will get a similar boost.

In other, non-Mike related news, Ingmar Bergman lost his game of chess at the age of 89. A great artist.

The fact that you can't explain what you were trying to convey with that sentence is answer enough.

You are reading

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?

and

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?

as having the same meaning. I've said so. Until you demonstrate you understand the difference between the application "of" and "by" in qualifying a noun, you simply cannot be accommodated.

Insults from you on deficiencies in grammar hurt about as much as being called ugly by a frog or nutty by...well...

I've asked a question with a casualness appropriate for your unprovoked first strike against me in this thread. You can say you've taken insult from what I've said, but saying I implied an insult implies on your part an intent on my part I feel perfectly free to tell you is wrong.

You insult me, I work less to accommodate your vanity. n ≠ Rocket Surgery

So in response to "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" I can only say that I do not know anyone who knew that George Bush did not benefit from the attacks of some of his opponents. Like most politicians, he has benefited from those who go too far in their criticism (there's a strong element of narcissism in many of the crazier elements of the right and left wing--it's all about them, they really don't care about the issues or how there words will be used--See An Coulter, Ward Churchill, etc).

It's natural for the Bush camp to engage in the ridicule they have been the recipients of, but the Kennedys don't nurture the ridicule of Jeffrey.

And you've volunteered a comparison of him to the Clintons. As far as I know the Clintons fostered the implied slander of no one, and the Bush camp has nurtured the kind of slander the Clintons have been subject to.

The vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney appeared in of the anti-Kerry "swiftboat" ads, which even one of the swiftboaters broke ranks and said they were lying about Kerry and even voted for him. And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

Ergo: "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" was a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.

Posted by Mike at July 30, 2007 09:44 AM
The vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney Posted appeared in of the anti-Kerry "swiftboat" ads, which even one of the swiftboaters broke ranks and said they were lying about Kerry and even voted for him. And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

WOW I sure hope PAD has an easier time flying home. I cannot even imagine what that conversation could digress into.

Jeffrey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Yours on JFK is in direct opposition to the facts as we know them, and the conclusions of the professionals that investigated everything that we know about the incidint. You think it was arrogance and pilot error. Thoe professionals that deal with aviation incidents for a living found it to expressly NOT be pilot error, meaning that as far as we can tall, JFK JR did everything he was trained to do, in fact everything any pilot of similar training would have done.

You seem to rely on a "proof in the pudding" rationale...he crashed, ergo, he must have been at fault. Good to use when dealing in the culinary field, not so good when looking at aviation incidents.

You also say that any pilot, if there's a chance that weather may devolop that they are not trained for, should not fly. Here's my advice to you, based on your view.

Do. Not. Ever. Get. On. A. Plane. Again.

Seriously, everytime a pilot straps himself in, whether he's in an ultralight with a lawnmower engine, or sitting at the controls of a 777, faces the potential of running into weather he's not qualified to fly in. Flying is dangerous, not so much because of the risks involved, but because of the gravity (heh, gravity...get it?) of the consequences when something goes wrong. If you're in your car, speeding down the highway, and your engive fails, you can at least coast and try to safely get over to the shoulder. When you're at 20,000 feet and your aircraft engine stalls, you'd better hope your airframe has a glide rating, and you can find a flat, even, long surface to put down on. Regardless, the chances of you surviving a total power failure in your auto are far, far greater than they are if you're in a aircraft.

But, whatever. Your opinion is not supported by the facts, and seems pretty irrational. But it's clear that throwing facts at you won't change your opinion.

bobb alfred: "The professionals that deal with aviation incidents for a living found it to expressly NOT be pilot error, meaning that as far as we can tall, JFK JR did everything he was trained to do, in fact everything any pilot of similar training would have done."

A point of clarification: the NTSB did in fact conclude that the crash was due to pilot error. Making an error, however, is not tantamount to recklessness.

Jeffrey Frawley's condemnation of JFK Jr. is founded on the premise that he lacked the requisite skill to fly under the conditions prevailing on the night of his death. As you and I have made abundantly clear (and I think we've made a decent tag-team on this), that is a false premise. There was nothing reckless about JFK Jr.'s decision to fly that night.

I fear you are correct, however, that no amount of facts will change Jeffrey's opinion. He seems to form his opinions independent of facts.

Bill, you're correct, in that it was pilot error caused by disorientation, which is not what Jeffrey keeps claiming. Jeffrey thinks that it was pilot error to go up at all, which it was not.

Ah! I finally get it! So to my point that Bush benefited from idiotic arguments from some opponents against him you ask who knew that George Bush never benefited from insulting Democrats. I'm thinking that your point was that it doesn't matter if Bush was unfairly targeted since he did the same thing himself.

It's such a non sequitur that it went right by me. Silly me. Since I never said such attacks were unfair--only not very smart and counter productive--your point seems, um, pointless.

In other words--even if Bush benefited every single day of his life from attacking, libeling, besmirching, sullying, calumniating...even if he was known far and wide as the Mike Leung of politics...it would not in any way challenge the idea that he himself was helped by the clumsy attacks of some of his opponents.

You can say you've taken insult from what I've said, but saying I implied an insult implies on your part an intent on my part I feel perfectly free to tell you is wrong.

I thought the whole "missed the day of school" bit was an insult but upon reflection it's more of a childish taunt.

You insult me, I work less to accommodate your vanity.

Says the guy who tells us about his heretofore unseen reason and thinks that CNN would be interested in his story about how big meanies on a blog called him names and made him cry. Captain Projection strikes again!

And you've volunteered a comparison of him to the Clintons. As far as I know the Clintons fostered the implied slander of no one, and the Bush camp has nurtured the kind of slander the Clintons have been subject to.

Again, irrelevant. The point was that both have benefited from the criticism of crazies. Whether or not the criticism was justified, the way it was offered backfired. As you are someone who routinely makes himself look bad when attacking other people I can see where this line of thought may be disconcerting.

And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

So unimaginative. For starters, no, Mike, when I said that these opponents helped get Bush re-elected I was, you know, NOT referring to the 2000 election. Because that was not the re-election, that is, you see.

Secondly, I would say that many of the real out there types on the left are not Democrats, even if they tend to hold their nose and vote for them when they vote. The nutty 9/11 conspiracy buffs are as likely to blame Democrats as much as Bush; their wacky theories include politicians of all stripes. Even the most famous critics--the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores--hardly qualify as Democrats, even if the media may have portrayed them as such (Sheehan has now been partially banned from the DailyKos site for threatening to run against Nancy Pelosi.)

(And one has to give kos founder Markos credit for seeing what Mike can't--recently he has threatened to ban people who are too stupid not to see that their craziness is just handing ammunition to the people they oppose. Markos is trying to accomplish more than just reap the questionable thrill of seeing his own words in print. Many bloggers who claim to be trying to make points or convince people are clearly just in it for the ego rush.)

a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.

You'll find no complaint from me at all. Reread it. Indeed, if I was the member of the Bush camp you want me to be, I would be asking for even more attacks! Really Mike, find the complaint. I know you can do it, even if you have to make something up. Don't feel like you have to rush--I'm driving back to NY tonight and must take a long nap (you can see why I drove down here for the weekend at http://www.sanfordherald.com/index.php?pSetup=sanfordherald&curDate=20070729&pageToLoad=showFreeArticle.php&type=art&index=01

Our first front page story for this movie! Yes, it HAS been a slow news week, what of it?

Ack, and now Tom Snyder died. Anyone ever seen his interviews with Harlan Ellison? Great stuff.

You almost get the feeling that Mike is getting worried that Jeffrey will take his place as Official Idiot of the Peter David Blog.

You insult me, I work less to accommodate your vanity.

Captain Projection strikes again!

How convenient is it for my simply highlighting lessons in the use of prepositions take place in elementary school qualifies as a childish taunt, yet inferring an intended insult from "Official Idiot" qualifies as projection? That's Totally Normal Psychology.™

(That was underscoring your hypocrisy.)

And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

So unimaginative. For starters, no, Mike, when I said that these opponents helped get Bush re-elected I was, you know, NOT referring to the 2000 election. Because that was not the re-election, that is, you see.

You:

1. refer to the reelection
2. say I flubbed in saying "democrats" when I should have said "Bush opponents"
3. say "Bush opponents" is too broad a term for the reelection

If by "unimaginative" you mean "doesn't attribute to others what they haven't said," glad to be of service.

There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. But when you phrase it in such crude and, frankly, mean-spirited ways, it only makes people sympathetic to them and hurts whatever point you intended. It's one reason why Bush was able to win a second term despite the misgivings of many people who ultimately voted for him--too many of his opponents made themselves look bad.

"Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" was a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.

You'll find no complaint from me at all. Reread it. Indeed, if I was the member of the Bush camp you want me to be, I would be asking for even more attacks! Really Mike, find the complaint. I know you can do it, even if you have to make something up.

Unless you are saying you rejoice at witnessing people receive ridicule, I am appropriately inferring a complaint from your use of the words "crude" and "mean-spirited."

Fresh from my nap, ready for more flailing about from the Mikester.

How convenient is it for my simply highlighting lessons in the use of prepositions take place in elementary school qualifies as a childish taunt, yet inferring an intended insult from "Official Idiot" qualifies as projection? That's Totally Normal Psychology.™

Someone who thinks he is distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity and thinks that CNN is interested in his sad story of internet mocking has taken the word vanity to...well...by gosh he HAS distilled something to new levels!

And what's this totally "normal" psychology stuff? Don't you know that Jung showed that there is no such thing as normal? Normal is a non-existent standard, and it's ridiculous to hold people to a standard that simply does not exist.

If by "unimaginative" you mean "doesn't attribute to others what they haven't said," glad to be of service.

No, by unimaginative I meant that when you think of crazy Bush opponents who helped get him re-elected by their craziness you can only come up with Democrats and one guy who ran against him in 2000. That you can't just see that you made a simple error is so telling. Heck, I've gotten election years wrong in this very forum and managed to admit it. It's no big deal unless one is the kind of small sad person for whom any admission of error runs the risk of shattering the facade they've tried to build about themselves.

And I think you owe a new keyboard to everyone who sprayed coffee over their upon reading that you think of yourself as someone who "doesn't attribute to others what they haven't said," Dude, you're the King of Strawmen. It's not much...but hey, you get to be King!

Unless you are saying you rejoice at witnessing people receive ridicule, I am appropriately inferring a complaint from your use of the words "crude" and "mean-spirited."

No complaint at all, since the crude and mean spirited people are hoisted by their own petard. For example, when I tell you, in all honesty, "don't ever change" it is in large part because your poorly constructed and delivered insults are so unconvincing that they inevitably make the object of your attacks look even better than they would on just the facts. Only you, Mike, could argue that the sky is blue and do such a lousy job of it that people would actually have to go check it out for themselves.

Now I realize that you are one of the kinds of people I mentioned earlier--you have no intention or desire of convincing anyone of anything. It's all about making yourself feel better about yourself. That you've needlessly turned off virtually everyone that has interacted with you here--and this place is one of the most tolerant ones you'll ever come across--is not even a concern, so long as your needy vanity gets fed. That's Totally Norm...er, that's Something.

Someone who thinks he is distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity and thinks that CNN is interested in his sad story of internet mocking has taken the word vanity to...well...by gosh he HAS distilled something to new levels!

Jerry was exulting in venting his disgust on me, I inferred from his posts a threat to publicly post my personal contact info, and he refused to rule it out. Retaliating to a threat to increase my vulnerability with a counter-threat to access the widest possible exposure of the threat is completely appropriate. When you're attempting to elude a violent crime, the single most-effective word to shout is "fire" for that very reason.

You can demonstrate I overreacted by simply posting Mrs Mulligan's cell phone number. If not, then we are in agreement posting personal info is bad, and your ridicule is hypocritical.

How convenient is it for [you that] my simply highlighting [that] lessons in the use of prepositions take place in elementary school qualifies as a childish taunt, yet inferring an intended insult from "Official Idiot" qualifies as projection? That's Totally Normal Psychology.™

And what's this totally "normal" psychology stuff? Don't you know that Jung showed that there is no such thing as normal? Normal is a non-existent standard, and it's ridiculous to hold people to a standard that simply does not exist.

...which you have demonstrated you don't believe. Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy. My employing That's Totally Normal Psychology™ underscores that you only qualify for your definition of mentally healthy if hypocrisy is normal.

So in response to "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" I can only say that I do not know anyone who knew that George Bush did not benefit from the attacks of some of his opponents. Like most politicians, he has benefited from those who go too far in their criticism (there's a strong element of narcissism in many of the crazier elements of the right and left wing--it's all about them, they really don't care about the issues or how there words will be used--See An Coulter, Ward Churchill, etc).

It's natural for the Bush camp to engage in the ridicule they have been the recipients of, but the Kennedys don't nurture the ridicule of Jeffrey.

And you've volunteered a comparison of him to the Clintons. As far as I know the Clintons fostered the implied slander of no one, and the Bush camp has nurtured the kind of slander the Clintons have been subject to.

The vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney appeared in of the anti-Kerry "swiftboat" ads, which even one of the swiftboaters broke ranks and said they were lying about Kerry and even voted for him. And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

Ergo: "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" was a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.

So unimaginative. For starters, no, Mike, when I said that these opponents helped get Bush re-elected I was, you know, NOT referring to the 2000 election. Because that was not the re-election, that is, you see.

You:

1. refer to the reelection
2. say I flubbed in saying "democrats" when I should have said "Bush opponents"
3. say "Bush opponents" is too broad a term for the reelection

If by "unimaginative" you mean "doesn't attribute to others what they haven't said," glad to be of service.

No, by unimaginative I meant that when you think of crazy Bush opponents who helped get him re-elected by their craziness you can only come up with Democrats and one guy who ran against him in 2000. That you can't just see that you made a simple error is so telling. Heck, I've gotten election years wrong in this very forum and managed to admit it. It's no big deal unless one is the kind of small sad person for whom any admission of error runs the risk of shattering the facade they've tried to build about themselves.

No, I cited the democrats and McMcain as victims of the sword wielded by the Bush campaign, you complained Bush was cut by in 2004. I have literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush.

In order for your strawman to be true you have to again be reading

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?

and

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?

as having the same meaning. Your continued inability to distinguish "of" and "by" is awesome. Just... awesome.

And I think you owe a new keyboard to everyone who sprayed coffee over their upon reading that you think of yourself as someone who "doesn't attribute to others what they haven't said," Dude, you're the King of Strawmen. It's not much...but hey, you get to be King!

You can make it a first and cite any point by me that depended on me manufacturing a strawman.

Hypocrisy: It's The New Normal.™

Honestly, why the venom? If JFK Jr. was undeserving of all the fame and attention given him...so what? This and the "immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head" bit make it clear you don't like the Kennedys. Fine. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. But when you phrase it in such crude and, frankly, mean-spirited ways, it only makes people sympathetic to them and hurts whatever point you intended. It's one reason why Bush was able to win a second term despite the misgivings of many people who ultimately voted for him--too many of his opponents made themselves look bad.

Unless you are saying you rejoice at witnessing people receive ridicule, I am appropriately inferring a complaint from your use of the words "crude" and "mean-spirited."

No complaint at all, since the crude and mean spirited people are hoisted by their own petard.

Ok. I was giving you credit for trying to discourage Jeffrey, not trying to encourage his ridicule of JFK Jr's death. Don't let me stop you from admitting you exult in the ridicule of others' misfortunes.

Now I realize that you are one of the kinds of people I mentioned earlier--you have no intention or desire of convincing anyone of anything. It's all about making yourself feel better about yourself.

So for all the time you spend here, it doesn't make you feel better about yourself? Well, then, why aren't you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?

That you've needlessly turned off virtually everyone that has interacted with you here...

How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone, their defending themselves is needless?

--and this place is one of the most tolerant ones you'll ever come across--is not even a concern, so long as your needy vanity gets fed. That's Totally Norm...er, that's Something.

How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?

Translations for those new to Mike:

I made an ass out of myself by trying to make people think that I could make my sad story a CNN exclusive. Everybody laughed at me.

I will disqualify words or use them as I wish. They mean what I say they do. This makes me feel bottlecap.

If I don't like your argument I will simply make it into a new one. If you accuse me of making a strawman I will demand you prove it. Which you won't be able to do because your words mean what I say they mean.

Seriously though;
as having the same meaning. Your continued inability to distinguish "of" and "by" is awesome. Just... awesome.

Oh I get it. It's just not relevant to the point I was making. But I guess I can infer from the fact that you are pursuing this point and literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush that you agreed with my point and were just trying to get something going. Sorry, but since I'm more than willing to agree that Bush and company have trashed opponents (albeit in a way that has not helped those opponents, which indicates a certain level of common sense) there's nothing to argue over. Other than your personal problems and those can't hold one's interest for long.

Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy.

Oh just having fun with you Mike, ya big goof. You can use normal any time you want. Nobody took that stuff you were saying seriously.

Don't let me stop you from admitting you exult in the ridicule of others' misfortunes.

No, I exult in rotten people being tripped up by their own rotten personalities. When someone displays their crummy attitudes and ignorance and, as a result, exposes themselves for what they are, it makes the world a better place.

I can see where this could make you uncomfortable.

So for all the time you spend here, it doesn't make you feel better about yourself? Well, then, why aren't you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?

I enjoy being here because we have made a nice little community of diverse, smarter than average people who share their thoughts, opinions and experiences. Some have gone beyond that and become friends. You are the troll in the garden party. Your enjoyment seems to be limited to having people pay attention to you and you've found that the easiest way is to just be confrontational. We both get enjoyment but I think my reasons for getting enjoyment are superior to yours, in as much as they don't require trolling.

To put it another way, if you actually made good on your claim that you were going to be posting less (having accomplished all you could here) you would be missed not at all...but you know you'd desperately miss the attention we give you. That's why you can't and won't leave. No, that's not me trying to trick you into saying "Oh yeah! I'll show him! I'll leave and never dazzle them with my brilliance again!" (Oh and Mike--that's a pretend quote for comedic effect, just so you don't get hysterical that I'm misquoting you and threaten to call MSNBC, Logo, MTV2 and, oddly enough, The Golf Channel). You ain't going anywhere. Literally.

How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone, their defending themselves is needless?

Um, ooookay. So why do you think it is that your interactions here with so many people have been so unsatisfactory? Are we just not smart enough? Can't handle the purity of your distilled reason?

How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?

Well, everybody knows your name. There's that. If you're asking why you get enjoyment being the kind of person you are, that's a great question many have asked. Only you can answer it, if you have the honesty and/or self awareness to do so. But again, you seem to be showing an astonishing lack of imagination if you think that deliberately making yourself disliked is incompatible with feeding vanity. Some of the most vain narcissistic people you'll ever meet act in exactly that way.

Anyhoo, gotta run. The floor is yours.

Just to add yet another story, when I was leaving for San Diego on Thursday, I got stopped outside the X-ray entrance by a security screener who was... well Englishly challenged if there's such a term, who couldn't be made to understand that Joe was actually a diminutive of Joseph and kept insisting that they were two completely different names. In a fit of pique, she scrawled several letters on my boarding pass, which I immediately recognized as being flagged for secondary security screening. That meant I had to be searched and my bag checked for explosives by a (thankfully more rational) security screener named Christopher, who usually went by the name Chris, who basically rolled his eyes and whispered to me when nobody was looking, 'We're going to be getting rid of them soon!'

Someone who thinks he is distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity and thinks that CNN is interested in his sad story of internet mocking has taken the word vanity to...well...by gosh he HAS distilled something to new levels!

Jerry was... venting his disgust on me, I inferred from his posts a threat to publicly post my personal contact info, and he refused to rule it out. Retaliating to a threat to increase my vulnerability with a counter-threat to access the widest possible exposure of the threat is completely appropriate. When you're attempting to elude a violent crime, the single most-effective word to shout is "fire" for that very reason.

You can demonstrate I overreacted by simply posting Mrs Mulligan's cell phone number. If not, then we are in agreement posting personal info is bad, and your ridicule is hypocritical.

I made an ass out of myself by trying to make people think that I could make my sad story a CNN exclusive. Everybody laughed at me.

You've returned to your original ridicule, but you haven't demonstrated how your backing-off my challenge invalidates the legitimacy of my concern. Thank you.

So in response to "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" I can only say that I do not know anyone who knew that George Bush did not benefit from the attacks of some of his opponents. Like most politicians, he has benefited from those who go too far in their criticism (there's a strong element of narcissism in many of the crazier elements of the right and left wing--it's all about them, they really don't care about the issues or how there words will be used--See An Coulter, Ward Churchill, etc).

It's natural for the Bush camp to engage in the ridicule they have been the recipients of, but the Kennedys don't nurture the ridicule of Jeffrey.

And you've volunteered a comparison of him to the Clintons. As far as I know the Clintons fostered the implied slander of no one, and the Bush camp has nurtured the kind of slander the Clintons have been subject to.

The vice-chair of Veterans for Bush/Cheney appeared in of the anti-Kerry "swiftboat" ads, which even one of the swiftboaters broke ranks and said they were lying about Kerry and even voted for him. And your democrats/Bush-opponents issue presumably refers to John McCain, who Bush campaigners implied fathered a black baby in telemarketing calls during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

Ergo: "Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?" was a completely appropriate response to you complaining Bush has been cut by the very swords he lives by.

So unimaginative. For starters, no, Mike, when I said that these opponents helped get Bush re-elected I was, you know, NOT referring to the 2000 election. Because that was not the re-election, that is, you see.

You:

1. refer to the reelection
2. say I flubbed in saying "democrats" when I should have said "Bush opponents"
3. say "Bush opponents" is too broad a term for the reelection

If by "unimaginative" you mean "doesn't attribute to others what they haven't said," glad to be of service.

No, by unimaginative I meant that when you think of crazy Bush opponents who helped get him re-elected by their craziness you can only come up with Democrats and one guy who ran against him in 2000. That you can't just see that you made a simple error is so telling. Heck, I've gotten election years wrong in this very forum and managed to admit it. It's no big deal unless one is the kind of small sad person for whom any admission of error runs the risk of shattering the facade they've tried to build about themselves.

No, I cited the democrats and [McCain] as victims of the sword wielded by the Bush campaign, [which] you complained Bush was cut by in 2004. I have literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush.

In order for your strawman to be true you have to again be reading

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander of democrats not even a single day of his life?

and

Who knew George W. Bush benefited from the ridicule or implied slander by democrats not even a single day of his life?

as having the same meaning. Your continued inability to distinguish "of" and "by" is awesome. Just... awesome.

Oh I get it. It's just not relevant to the point I was making.

I have literally cited no crazies ridiculing Bush. Why do you persist in treating the two sentences as having the same meaning if your point didn't depend on it?

Honestly, why the venom? If JFK Jr. was undeserving of all the fame and attention given him...so what? This and the "immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head" bit make it clear you don't like the Kennedys. Fine. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. But when you phrase it in such crude and, frankly, mean-spirited ways, it only makes people sympathetic to them and hurts whatever point you intended. It's one reason why Bush was able to win a second term despite the misgivings of many people who ultimately voted for him--too many of his opponents made themselves look bad.

Unless you are saying you rejoice at witnessing people receive ridicule, I am appropriately inferring a complaint from your use of the words "crude" and "mean-spirited."

No complaint at all, since the crude and mean spirited people are hoisted by their own petard.

Ok. I was giving you credit for trying to discourage Jeffrey, not trying to encourage his ridicule of JFK Jr's death. Don't let me stop you from admitting you exult in the ridicule of others' misfortunes.

No, I exult in rotten people being tripped up by their own rotten personalities. When someone displays their crummy attitudes and ignorance and, as a result, exposes themselves for what they are, it makes the world a better place.

I can see where this could make you uncomfortable.

You haven't disqualified what I said. Instead, you've provided your justification for holding your taste for the ridicule of others' misfortunes.

Now I realize that you are one of the kinds of people I mentioned earlier--you have no intention or desire of convincing anyone of anything. It's all about making yourself feel better about yourself.

So for all the time you spend here, it doesn't make you feel better about yourself? Well, then, why aren't you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?

I enjoy being here because we have made a nice little community of diverse, smarter than average people who share their thoughts, opinions and experiences.

Then why did you ambush me without provocation instead of one of those smarter-than-average people you could be talking to instead?

That you've needlessly turned off virtually everyone that has interacted with you here...

How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone, their defending themselves is needless?

Um, ooookay. So why do you think it is that your interactions here with so many people have been so unsatisfactory? Are we just not smart enough? Can't handle the purity of your distilled reason?

I never said defending myself from an unprovoked attack was unsatisfactory, I never said my time here didn't satisfy me, and nothing I've said depends on my having said any such thing.

--and this place is one of the most tolerant ones you'll ever come across--is not even a concern, so long as your needy vanity gets fed. That's Totally Norm...er, that's Something.

How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?

...you seem to be showing an astonishing lack of imagination if you think that deliberately making yourself disliked is incompatible with feeding vanity. Some of the most vain narcissistic people you'll ever meet act in exactly that way.

You haven't answered my question. You (surprise, surprise) lack the same imagination you criticize me for lacking.

Engaging Mike-to-English™ programming. Text translation enabled.
________________________________________________________

"Jerry was exulting in venting his disgust on me,"

Jerry was displaying the same disgust, revulsion and ultimately the indifference that everybody else displays towards me. Why don't I have any friends? Why am I so lonely?

"I inferred from his posts a threat to publicly post my personal contact info,"

I forgot to take my meds that day. I forget them a lot actually. When I forget, the paranoia comes back. Have I mentioned that I've distilled™ paranoia to level heretofore unseen by man?

"and he refused to rule it out."

My reading comprehension skills are unbelievable. Did I tell you all that I passed the 2nd Grade admissions test this year? And mom said that I would never get out of 1st Grade English. Or was that diapers?

"Retaliating to a threat to increase my vulnerability with a counter-threat to access the widest possible exposure of the threat is completely appropriate."

My fantasy life is fun. I like to make believe that I'm some great and famous hero who is threatened by the forces of darkness. Ok, it's pretty pathetic. But it's still head and shoulders better then my primary fantasy of being able to pick up John Stewart's sloppy seconds. Oh how I've longed for the chance to do that. 8)

"When you're attempting to elude a violent crime, the single most-effective word to shout is "fire" for that very reason.

I do it all the time. But then, my definition of violent crime my be different then yours. What can I say? When you've had roving groups of six-year-olds mug you repeatedly for your lunch money as I have, you get overly nervous. That and I forgot my meds again this morning.

"You can demonstrate I overreacted by simply posting Mrs Mulligan's cell phone number."

I really hope Bill falls for this trick. I know I would! Oh, it would be so refreshing to talk to a flesh and blood woman that doesn't involve 1-800 numbers or $150.00 an hour payments. Even if all she'll do is laugh at me, it would be such a huge step up for me!!!!!!

"Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy."

Oh no!!! You've pointed out yet another example of my stupidity or hypocrisy. Maybe if I claim that your pointing out my stupidity and hypocrisy is in fact hypocrisy on your part, then no one will actually notice my stupidity and hypocrisy. Hey, it should work. There's got to be at least some people here who are as dumb as I am.

"My employing That's Totally Normal Psychology™ underscores that you only qualify for your definition of mentally healthy if hypocrisy is normal."

I like pie. Don't you like pie? I think everybody should like pie. 8)

"Your continued inability to distinguish "of" and "by" is awesome. Just... awesome."

I was watching 'Wayne's World' on cable last night and found a new word! Awesome!!!!!! I'll use awesome as much as possible from now on. It's such a big word. Maybe it will distract people from noticing all the small words I string together have no meaning at all?

"So for all the time you spend here, it doesn't make you feel better about yourself?"

Please, tell me how I can make myself feel better about myself. I'm so lowly and loathsome. Tell me how to feel better about myself!!!!!!!!!

"Well, then, why aren't you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?"

I can understand your not feeling any satisfaction talking with me. I have to be around myself all of the time and I can't stand it. Even the other voices in my head refused to talk to me anymore years ago now. Do you know how it feels to have the voices in your head throwing a party and telling you you're not welcome?!? Why don't they love me anymore??????

"How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone,"

I am SO cool. I've invented another randomly linked and pointless word grouping. Provocation Disgust™. I'm so happy!!!!! When I'm happy, I feel like pie. I like pie. Have I mentioned that. Hmmmmmm..... Pie............

"their defending themselves is needless?"

It is needless in my case! I don't need to defend myself! I'm INDEFENSIBLE!!!! So there, Mulligan! I'm indefensible!!!! What have you got to say about that!

"How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?"

I'm so worthless. Please like me.

"Normal is a non-existent standard, and it's ridiculous to hold people to a standard that simply does not exist."

Bill, do me a favor. Can you tell my whole family that? Maybe then I can get moved up from the kid's table.

Now, something historic has happened. I've agreed with Mike. See, I like pie, too.

Joe, good story. Although I had the image of Chris the screener and his friends sacking the screeners who'd sacked the first group and finishing the credits at great cost and effort and utterly at the last minute in a new style.

Thank you.

No, thank you for ruining another thread.

Jerry was exulting in venting his disgust on me,

Jerry was displaying the same disgust, revulsion and ultimately the indifference that everybody else displays towards me. Why don't I have any friends? Why am I so lonely?

Thank you for admitting you vented disgust on me. It's funny how your disgust and revulsion also qualify as indifference. In all other senses of the words, that would be a contradiction.

I inferred from his posts a threat to publicly post my personal contact info,

I forgot to take my meds that day. I forget them a lot actually. When I forget, the paranoia comes back. Have I mentioned that I've distilled™ paranoia to level heretofore unseen by man?

Observe how Jerry's account of another's state of mind trumps that person's state of mind:

I tend to call people “boy” when joking them about my swiping their food (”Boy, you best be keeping a real close eye on them there ribs. They smell too damned good to not make a try for.”) or some such. I once had two black co-workers who spazzed over that and claimed that I was using a racially charged word since “boy” was what white slave masters would often call their black slaves.

Do you make arbitrarily trumping other people's account of their own experiences one of the secrets of your career success?

and he refused to rule it out.

My reading comprehension skills are unbelievable. Did I tell you all that I passed the 2nd Grade admissions test this year? And mom said that I would never get out of 1st Grade English. Or was that diapers?

Then it should be no challenge for you to cite where you ruled out publicly posting my contact info. Feel free to invite as many third graders as you need to help you.

Retaliating to a threat to increase my vulnerability with a counter-threat to access the widest possible exposure of the threat is completely appropriate.

My fantasy life is fun. I like to make believe that I'm some great and famous hero who is threatened by the forces of darkness. Ok, it's pretty pathetic.

I never said all victims are famous heroes.

But it's still head and shoulders better then my primary fantasy of being able to pick up John Stewart's sloppy seconds. Oh how I've longed for the chance to do that. 8)

You have sex only with virgins. Good for you if that's what it takes.

When you're attempting to elude a violent crime, the single most-effective word to shout is "fire" for that very reason.

I do it all the time. But then, my definition of violent crime my be different then yours. What can I say? When you've had roving groups of six-year-olds mug you repeatedly for your lunch money as I have, you get overly nervous. That and I forgot my meds again this morning.

Nothing I've said depends on me portraying myself as eluding a violent crime.

Apparently according to you, the appropriate behavior to the fight-or-flight response is to surrender. That is a recipe for nurturing a generation of victims. As someone who works in law enforcement, you should be embarrassed.

You can demonstrate I overreacted by simply posting Mrs Mulligan's cell phone number.

I really hope Bill falls for this trick. I know I would! Oh, it would be so refreshing to talk to a flesh and blood woman that doesn't involve 1-800 numbers or $150.00 an hour payments. Even if all she'll do is laugh at me, it would be such a huge step up for me!!!!!!

I wasn't thinking that, but your concern for my arousal is... consistent with what I've been saying about your interest in me, isn't it?

Your selective application of principle qualifies as hypocrisy.

Oh no!!! You've pointed out yet another example of my stupidity or hypocrisy. Maybe if I claim that your pointing out my stupidity and hypocrisy is in fact hypocrisy on your part, then no one will actually notice my stupidity and hypocrisy. Hey, it should work. There's got to be at least some people here who are as dumb as I am.

You heard it here, folks: a selective application of principle isn't hypocritical. Remember to update your vocabulary books.

My employing That's Totally Normal Psychology™ underscores that you only qualify for your definition of mentally healthy if hypocrisy is normal.

I like pie. Don't you like pie? I think everybody should like pie. 8)

You've validated my account by referring to it without disqualifying it. Thank you.

Your continued inability to distinguish "of" and "by" is awesome. Just... awesome.

I was watching 'Wayne's World' on cable last night and found a new word! Awesome!!!!!! I'll use awesome as much as possible from now on. It's such a big word. Maybe it will distract people from noticing all the small words I string together have no meaning at all?

It's amazing how you manage to post here without using any of the English used in "Wayne's World." No hypocrisy here.

So for all the time you spend here, it doesn't make you feel better about yourself?

Please, tell me how I can make myself feel better about myself. I'm so lowly and loathsome. Tell me how to feel better about myself!!!!!!!!!

Why would anyone ask someone who doesn't do things to make himself feel better about himself how to feel better about himself?

Well, then, why aren't you doing something that makes you feel better about yourself instead of interacting with me?

I can understand your not feeling any satisfaction talking with me. I have to be around myself all of the time and I can't stand it. Even the other voices in my head refused to talk to me anymore years ago now. Do you know how it feels to have the voices in your head throwing a party and telling you you're not welcome?!? Why don't they love me anymore??????

And your post demonstrates you can't stop thinking about me... how?

How convenient is it for you that when you vent with no provocation disgust on someone,

I am SO cool. I've invented another randomly linked and pointless word grouping. Provocation Disgust™. I'm so happy!!!!! When I'm happy, I feel like pie. I like pie. Have I mentioned that. Hmmmmmm..... Pie............

Nurse Ratched, please don't tell my mother.

their defending themselves is needless?

It is needless in my case! I don't need to defend myself! I'm INDEFENSIBLE!!!! So there, Mulligan! I'm indefensible!!!! What have you got to say about that!

Unlike you, I take into account what the people arguing with me say and, as such, my question to Bill was appropriate to his saying I'm indefensible. I don't consider my question an admission I'm indefensible.

How is interacting with a court virtually turned off by me supposed to feed my vanity?

I'm so worthless. Please like me.

Are you saying people are only measured by the esteem of others?

No, thank you for ruining another thread.

Jerry invited me. Go thank him.

Everyone... step away from the troll. I repeat: step away from the troll.

:)

Bill and Jerry, thank you for providing me with a really good laugh after a few difficult days.

I was going to say that Mike reminds me of Wiley E. Coyote or Daffy Duck. But I don't think the comparison works completely. First, Mike is more relentless than the coyote or Daffy. Secondly, the coyote and Daffy learn from their mistakes. Thirdly, the coyote and Daffy are smarter. Fourtly, both are more realistic characters. And lastly, Mike is not as entertaining, while the Coyote and Daffy are as funny today as they were 60 years ago.

On a serious note, Bill, why does it seem that Bush's underhanded attacks on others have proven more successful than the attacks from the extreme against him?
Secondly, I am not sure that the attacks against Bush from the crazy fringes have not eventually trickled down to the more moderate people and affected them. I can tell you that this is the assumption that motivates people from the fringes. People might not take us seriously now, they think, but over time, if we persist, people will turn around to our way of thinking even if they don't give us credit for it. This assumption is not always completely false, altough it's not as true as they think.
Thirdly, people in the fringe are often satisfied convincing each other and creating a small but very motivated community of like minded people. Look at evangelicals. They are certainly not a majority. Remember Robert Preston. The ideras he was parroting came from somewhere. I get some crazy right wing E-mails from my American uncle, and long extreme left wing E-mails from a communist acquaintance (both of which I stopped reading).

And now I'm going to teach you a Hebrew word: Kashkeshan. It means someone who speaks nonsense without stopping. It is not a curse word, I must emphasize. It's similar in meaning to the word chatterbox, though not exactly, and it's been coming to my mind repeatedly as I skimmed over Mike's posts. He is a Kashkeshan, there's no doubt about it.

Posted by: Bill Myers at July 31, 2007 01:42 PM
Everyone... step away from the troll. I repeat: step away from the troll.

:)

Your still alive? Damn it! The Anti-Myers Tactical Assault Force (or, The S-Team) has failed me again!!!!!

Next time, I hire cats.

Jerry, I already HAVE three cats. Three psychotic cats. Three feline engines of destruction. If I can survive them, I can survive anything.

Fine. Then I'll hire kinkajou then. Make me spend all that extra money.

Fine. Then I'll hire kinkajou. Make me spend all that extra money.

So much to choose from but what really stands out:

You have sex only with virgins. Good for you if that's what it takes.

Mike's insistance that any women who is not a virgin deserves the term "sloppy seconds" is just the latest manifestation of a somewhat disturbing weirdness toward the opposite sex that occasionally pops out of his keyboard. He has no clue how that sounds. He'll make some lucky girl a great stalker some day.

Jerry--funny stuff, better than mine.

Bill--yeah, yeah, I know. You're right.

On a serious note, Bill, why does it seem that Bush's underhanded attacks on others have proven more successful than the attacks from the extreme against him?

Part of it is that Bush has been succesful in appearing to be largely disengaged. For a long while the far left meme was that Bush was a mere puppet while Cheney and Rove and others pulled the strings. That made it easier for him to not get direct blame for any excesses by his campaign.

Another factor was that too many critics were going for the big enchilada, the smoking gun, the knockout punch...when smaller metaphors would have been more effective. The Dan Rather fake letters story was a gift from heaven.

Kashkeshan. Nice.

Is there a Hebrew word for "Rear end in a tophat"?

First off, Micha--lemme teach YOU a word, my friend. You teach Hebrew, I teach Scottish--havering--pretty much the same thing as Kashkeshan. Although, I bet if I say THAT at one of our family parties they're gonna look at me funny. Er.

Jerry, the S-Team hasn't failed, they're just letting Myers grow a false sense of security while they store their Horrid Acorns Of Death.

Posted by Bill Myers at July 31, 2007 01:42 PM

Everyone... step away from the troll. I repeat: step away from the troll.

:)

Don't let the crickets chirping for four hours stop you from referring to a non-existent suspense, Bill.

But it's still head and shoulders better then my primary fantasy of being able to pick up John Stewart's sloppy seconds. Oh how I've longed for the chance to do that. 8)

You have sex only with virgins. Good for you if that's what it takes.

Mike's insistance that any women who is not a virgin deserves the term "sloppy seconds" is just the latest manifestation of a somewhat disturbing weirdness toward the opposite sex that occasionally pops out of his keyboard. He has no clue how that sounds. He'll make some lucky girl a great stalker some day.

I don't know about you, Bill, but I think it's the view of sex as an entitlement that's really disturbing, which I have not implied, but you have inferred at your own discretion. Some men are simply turned on by a consenting partner. Go figure.

"Some men are simply turned on by a consenting partner."

And one day, likely many, many decades from now, Mike may actually find one himself. Don't you go and give up hope yet you little Kashkeshan. She might actually be out there somewhere.

Stranger things have happened.

I don't know about you, Bill, but I think it's the view of sex as an entitlement that's really disturbing, which I have not implied, but you have inferred at your own discretion. Some men are simply turned on by a consenting partner. Go figure.

Oh I think that BOTH can be disturbing. The difference is that any inference as to my view of sex as an entitlement is strictly in youw own strange mind, while your view that women who are not virgins should be considered "sloppy seconds" is right here in black and white.

What an odd little havering you are.

Ye Gods, is He loose again?

Only the Evil One could turn a thread so completely on it's fundament.

To paraphrase Mark Twain (with all apologies):
"Say you were a boring egomaniacal twit. Say you were Mike; but I repeat myself."

But it's still head and shoulders better then my primary fantasy of being able to pick up John Stewart's sloppy seconds. Oh how I've longed for the chance to do that. 8)

You have sex only with virgins. Good for you if that's what it takes.

Mike's insistance that any women who is not a virgin deserves the term "sloppy seconds" is just the latest manifestation of a somewhat disturbing weirdness toward the opposite sex that occasionally pops out of his keyboard. He has no clue how that sounds. He'll make some lucky girl a great stalker some day.

I don't know about you, Bill, but I think it's the view of sex as an entitlement that's really disturbing, which I have not implied, but you have inferred at your own discretion. Some men are simply turned on by a consenting partner. Go figure.

And one day, likely many, many decades from now, Mike may actually find one himself. Don't you go and give up hope yet you little Kashkeshan. She might actually be out there somewhere.

Stranger things have happened.

Not having a life, I can't say my fortune is squandered on me. Neglecting your life to interact with someone you consider a Kashkeshan -- what's your excuse?

I don't know about you, Bill, but I think it's the view of sex as an entitlement that's really disturbing, which I have not implied, but you have inferred at your own discretion. Some men are simply turned on by a consenting partner. Go figure.

Oh I think that BOTH can be disturbing.

So a guy admitting to being turned on by a consenting partner disturbs you?

The difference is that any inference as to my view of sex as an entitlement is strictly in youw own strange mind, while your view that women who are not virgins should be considered "sloppy seconds" is right here in black and white.

What an odd little havering you are.

You and Jerry are saying I admitted to being aroused by someone peforming the role of a sloppy second. I literally said no such thing. Since I am not aroused by someone peforming the role of a sloppy second, I know you will literally find no such quote by me. I simply referred to women who were available becaus ethey were sloppy seconds.

When Jerry disparaged his strawman, he seemed to be venting disgust at the prospect of sex with someone performing the sexual role of a sloppy second. The polar opposite of a sloppy second seems to be a virgin, and I responded accordingly.

Building on your strawman, you said "Mike's insistance that any women who is not a virgin deserves the term 'sloppy seconds'" which infers a dilution of all of a woman's roles with her sexual identity that I did not imply. Inferring all interaction with women as sexually-themed -- as you've done -- seems to be based on the view of sex as an entitlement.

This is also true for you saying "women who are not virgins should be considered 'sloppy seconds' is right here in black and white." There is no "should" in anything I've said -- only in your inference. "Should" denotes entitlement. Consistent with the definition of "consenting partner," I neither said nor implied a "should" in any of this.

Don't you go and give up hope yet you little Kashkeshan.

What an odd little havering you are.

I take it height is important to you, since you issue "little" as a disparagement. Perhaps someday you'll be generous enough to explain how that's supposed to disqualify anything I say.

And now I'm going to teach you a Hebrew word: Kashkeshan. It means someone who speaks nonsense without stopping. It is not a curse word, I must emphasize. It's similar in meaning to the word chatterbox, though not exactly, and it's been coming to my mind repeatedly as I skimmed over Mike's posts. He is a Kashkeshan, there's no doubt about it.

Is there something other than doubt stopping you from the ridiculously simple task of citing something by me that qualifies me as a Kashkeshan?

Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 11:06 PM

I don't see how, but thanks for admitting you engage in the coded-speech that shelters racism, my little macaca.

Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2007 11:03 PM

I take it height is important to you, since you issue "little" as a disparagement.

Mike, this is called psychological projection. You're very good at it. It was a word used without malice on our parts. We can't help it if your inadequacy issues with the word 'little' and the idea of height color how you perceive the comments of others.

Not having a life, I can't say my fortune is squandered on me. Neglecting your life to interact with someone you consider a Kashkeshan -- what's your excuse?

Perhaps we still have the hope that you can turn it around. You've admitted you have no life--that's the first step. Now try to work on figuring out the personality problems that led you to this destination and how you might change them.

I don't know about you, Bill, but I think it's the view of sex as an entitlement that's really disturbing, which I have not implied, but you have inferred at your own discretion. Some men are simply turned on by a consenting partner. Go figure.

Oh I think that BOTH can be disturbing.

So a guy admitting to being turned on by a consenting partner disturbs you?

And now Mike's been reduced to playing stupid to try to pull some dignity out of this. Sad. But ok, I'll play along; no, Mike, what I found disturbing was A-the view that sex is an entitlement and B-your view that any non-virgin woman should be considered "sloppy seconds"

It's amusing watching you get the flop sweats trying to deny you said it, or meant it or whatever. But it's out there, Mike. Too late now. If you want us not to think of you as a creepy guy you'll have to start thinking before you post creepy things.

Mike on the term "sloppy seconds"
I'm guessing it's only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.

Spin it any way you want, Kashkeshan, pretend that there may still be somebody that hasn't been convinced by your own words of just what a little man you are.

And by "little" I, of course, don't mean height. You're just playing dumb again (I hope!). For all I know you could qualify for a Diane Arbus pictorial. No, by little I refer to another common use of the word--petty, narrow, unimportant. That you combine this with what would otherwise be an almost comical degree of narcissism just makes it sad.

I doubt that any further points need to be made. From the way this thread has gone it's doubtful that anything I can say can make you look worse than you are doing to yourself. So in that spirit--please help yourself to the last word.

(But I'll leave with a completely serious word of advice--try not to use the "sloppy seconds" line on any female you might find yourself having a conversation with. Just...don't.)

Jerry, unless you are saying my use of "little" was not disparaging, I can only thank you for simply confirming my reading of your posts.

And now Mike's been reduced to playing stupid to try to pull some dignity out of this. Sad. But ok, I'll play along; no, Mike, what I found disturbing was A-the view that sex is an entitlement and B-your view that any non-virgin woman should be considered "sloppy seconds"

Look at you trying to blame me for your presupposing sex as an entitlement, like anyone is going to find a post by you busting me for it before I busted you. When in doubt, use the "I'm rubber, you're glue" rebuttal.

And no, saying the polar opposite of a sloppy second is a virgin is not the same as saying any non-virgin woman should be considered sloppy seconds. As someone who takes money for passing science onto school children, you should be embarassed for that definitively unscientific bluff.

You and Jerry are saying I admitted to being aroused by someone peforming the role of a sloppy second. I literally said no such thing. Since I am not aroused by someone peforming the role of a sloppy second, I know you will literally find no such quote by me. I simply referred to women who were available [because they] were sloppy seconds.

When Jerry disparaged his strawman, he seemed to be venting disgust at the prospect of sex with someone performing the sexual role of a sloppy second. The polar opposite of a sloppy second seems to be a virgin, and I responded accordingly.

Building on your strawman, you said "Mike's insistance that any women who is not a virgin deserves the term 'sloppy seconds'" which infers a dilution of all of a woman's roles with her sexual identity that I did not imply. Inferring all interaction with women as sexually-themed -- as you've done -- seems to be based on the view of sex as an entitlement.

This is also true for you saying "women who are not virgins should be considered 'sloppy seconds' is right here in black and white." There is no "should" in anything I've said -- only in your inference. "Should" denotes entitlement. Consistent with the definition of "consenting partner," I neither said nor implied a "should" in any of this.

It's amusing watching you get the flop sweats trying to deny you said it, or meant it or whatever. But it's out there, Mike. Too late now. If you want us not to think of you as a creepy guy you'll have to start thinking before you post creepy things.

So how many times do I have to say "sloppy seconds," Bill, before I've stopped denying I've said it, or used it in its intended meaning, or whatever? You tell me.

I give Stewart the edge over Cheney because when it comes time to repopulate the species, Stewart's going to have smarter and better "sloppy seconds."

Um...ewww. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a bit creepy.

I'm guessing it's only creepy to couples who have only been intimate with each other. Feel free to abstain from a second marriage if it suits you to do so.

Spin it any way you want, Kashkeshan, pretend that there may still be somebody that hasn't been convinced by your own words of just what a little man you are.

Couples who have only been intimate with each other were, by definition, virgins when they committed to each other. As they are not second to anything, they do not qualify as sloppy seconds.

And now you're offering my consistency as evidence I'm a Kashkeshan? Whaaateeeveeerrr, Kashkeshan.

And by "little" I, of course, don't mean height. You're just playing dumb again (I hope!). For all I know you could qualify for a Diane Arbus pictorial. No, by little I refer to another common use of the word--petty, narrow, unimportant.

Oh. So you didn't mean little literally, you meant little metaphorically.

How is anyone short supposed to take their size being used as a disparaging metaphor? Are you not well?

(But I'll leave with a completely serious word of advice--try not to use the "sloppy seconds" line on any female you might find yourself having a conversation with. Just...don't.)

With you apparently packing your bags to move in with me, I will never have to say "sloppy seconds" to pick up a chick again.

Jerry, unless you are saying my use of "little" was not disparaging, I can only thank you for simply confirming my reading of your posts.

And I repeat...

Mike, this is called psychological projection. You're very good at it. It was a word used without malice on our parts. We can't help it if your inadequacy issues with the word 'little' and the idea of height color how you perceive the comments of others.

Note that key sentence up there.

It was a word used without malice on our parts.

While your use of the word may well be disparaging, that does not mean that the use of the word by others is likewise disparaging. Your assumption that a word is disparaging when used by others just because you have chosen to make it disparaging based on your own shortcomings, inadequacies and self doubts is, again, your issue with your constant psychological projection onto others and their words or actions.

I would also point out that your basic inability to read and understand the sentence...

"It was a word used without malice on our parts."

... seems to greatly underscore as fact a line I merely posted about you in jest before.

"My reading comprehension skills are unbelievable. Did I tell you all that I passed the 2nd Grade admissions test this year? And mom said that I would never get out of 1st Grade English. Or was that diapers?"

A third grader would have gotten that point. Hell, even a second grader would have. But not our Mike. And yet you still have the delusion in your head that you can make sarcastic comments about Bill being a teacher from some position of intellectual superiority? Oooooooooooooookay. Your delusion and welcome to it.

Hopefully, none of us will ever get close enough to you in real life to determine whether or not you would also prove the diaper portion of that line to be accurate as well.

Oh, and I missed this line of Mike's before while just skimming his previous verbal diarrhea...

"Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2007 09:29 AM

Observe how Jerry's account of another's state of mind trumps that person's state of mind:

Yes, do please go to Mike's link and observe it. Make Mike happy. He's only pasted that thing three or four times now. And once there, feel free to notice what Mike left out to create his usual out of context quotation for whatever fantasy world accusation he needs to make to make himself feel delusions of being better, bigger, etc.

Then feel free to move on and read the entire thread. Maybe that will cause this thread to shift to a more interesting debate topic then whack-a-mole and Mike's projection issues over his own inadequacies and difficulties with the opposite sex. I mean, fun is fun, but Mike debates, like yesterdays dirty laundry, begin to stink a bit when they get old.

Mike, this is called psychological projection. You're very good at it. It was a word used without malice on our parts. We can't help it if your inadequacy issues with the word 'little' and the idea of height color how you perceive the comments of others.

Note that key sentence up there.

It was a word used without malice on our parts.

Which you demonstrated.... by cited an example of its use as a disparagement.

While your use of the word may well be disparaging, that does not mean that the use of the word by others is likewise disparaging. Your assumption that a word is disparaging when used by others just because you have chosen to make it disparaging based on your own shortcomings, inadequacies and self doubts is, again, your issue with your constant psychological projection onto others and their words or actions.

I would also point out that your basic inability to read and understand the sentence...

"It was a word used without malice on our parts."

Then what was the virtue of you introducing evidence whose only relevance is to confirm what I say?

and he refused to rule it out.

My reading comprehension skills are unbelievable. Did I tell you all that I passed the 2nd Grade admissions test this year? And mom said that I would never get out of 1st Grade English. Or was that diapers?

Then it should be no challenge for you to cite where you ruled out publicly posting my contact info. Feel free to invite as many third graders as you need to help you.

A third grader would have gotten that point. Hell, even a second grader would have. But not our Mike.

I'm ready to hear you cite where you ruled out publicly posting my contact info whenever you're ready to post it.

And yet you still have the delusion in your head that you can make sarcastic comments about Bill being a teacher from some position of intellectual superiority? Oooooooooooooookay. Your delusion and welcome to it.

Hopefully, none of us will ever get close enough to you in real life to determine whether or not you would also prove the diaper portion of that line to be accurate as well.

I literally never claimed to have made a sarcastic comment about Bill being a teacher. If you want to deny I've done so, I have no reservation against agreeing with you.

Observe how Jerry's account of another's state of mind trumps that person's [own account of his] state of mind:

I tend to call people “boy” when joking them about my swiping their food (”Boy, you best be keeping a real close eye on them there ribs. They smell too damned good to not make a try for.”) or some such. I once had two black co-workers who spazzed over that and claimed that I was using a racially charged word since “boy” was what white slave masters would often call their black slaves.

Do you make arbitrarily trumping other people's account of their own experiences one of your secrets of career success?

Yes, do please go to Mike's link and observe it. Make Mike happy. He's only pasted that thing three or four times now. And once there, feel free to notice what Mike left out to create his usual out of context quotation for whatever fantasy world accusation he needs to make to make himself feel delusions of being better, bigger, etc.

Then feel free to move on and read the entire thread. Maybe that will cause this thread to shift to a more interesting debate topic then whack-a-mole and Mike's projection issues over his own inadequacies and difficulties with the opposite sex. I mean, fun is fun, but Mike debates, like yesterdays dirty laundry, begin to stink a bit when they get old.

By all means, everyone go look at how Jerry reversed his "spazzed" evaluation, and acknowledged the authenticity of the offense others had taken from what he said. Shame on me for not including that. Bad New Jersey public school education. Bad, bad New Jersey public school education.

I think we've hit rock bottom when we started discussing Mike's sex-life. In fact I would suggest not discussing any aspect of Mike's private life even if we are sometimes tempted to enter into discussion involving things Mike said or did on this thread.

The best of course would be to shift to a different subject. Sometimes subjects that are part of a Mike-discussion are also worthy of a serious discussion if we are willing to extract it from its Mikeiness. Surely most people here who are not Mike are capable of holding serious discussions or at least entertaining ones.

Fortunatly at present I'm immune to Mike for the simple reason that I'm too tired to read his posts. The endless strings of quotes + the tortured sentences and twisted reasoning are tiring my eyes, so I stopped reading them.

Well, here's a question for anyone out there--is there asny reason why my new laptop won't let me get on this page if I use firefox but has no problem if I use internet explorer?

It's windows vista, if that matters. My other computer (xp) can access the page just fine with firefox.

Thus far I've had no problem with xp but I have yet to load some of the critical programs i need to work with, so time will tell.

I was supposed to read all that stuff? Damn.

Bill,

In the words of 5 friends of mine who are going through all sorts of computer hell...

Vista sucks.

They're having no end of problems like yours as well as boatloads of other headaches. I'm so happy I'm on a tighter budget thanks to Ian. I decided not to upgrade a few months back and am so happy about that these days.

So many people are prefering XP to vista that microsoft is doing the expected thing--threatening to stop selling XP.

The best ringing endorsement of Vista I've read so far was somebody referring to it as ME 2.0.

And what's this totally "normal" psychology stuff? Don't you know that Jung showed that there is no such thing as normal? Normal is a non-existent standard, and it's ridiculous to hold people to a standard that simply does not exist.

Fortunatly at present I'm immune to Mike for the simple reason that I'm too tired to read his posts. The endless strings of quotes + the tortured sentences and twisted reasoning are tiring my eyes, so I stopped reading them.

I was supposed to read all that stuff? Damn.

If you're referring to my posts, my imposition on the reader is very small. I accommodate the reader's intuition by making my points in the left-most-justified text. At a casual glance, this text comprises from as little as a small fraction of a post to perhaps half of it.

Of course, if the reader's intuition is flabby -- because he's put nurturing the esteem others have in him above accommodating his own intuition -- he is simply challenged in skipping the indented text I include to support my points.

This seems to be why my posts antagonize so many people who are simply unable to disqualify what I say -- you apparently cannot stand what is referred to as the real deal.

Mike, thank you for obsessively reading my blog in an attempt to find fault with me and my friends. Clearly, you can't get enough of us. I'm afraid I don't have a similar interest in you, however, and can't be bothered to peruse your site. Because, y'know, you're quite vapid and boring.

"Mike, thank you for obsessively reading my blog in an attempt to find fault with me and my friends."

What are you refering to Bill?

The link Mike keeps posting as an example of how Jerry believes his "account of another's state of mind trumps that person's [own account of his] state of mind" takes you to my blog. Apparently Mike goes there from time-to-time to dig up dirt on us.

My blog amounts to a public forum, however, and my regular posters and I are aware of that. I believe I speak for them as well as myself when I say that we're unashamed of what we've written and are confident that our words can and will withstand public scrutiny.

Personally, I think it would make sense to focus on things written in Peter's blog when having discussions with other posters in Peter's blog. But that's just me. If Mike wants to keep publicizing my blog, well, God bless 'im.

Mike, I'm taking a Time Out from my ignoring you to comment on the "clarity" of your posting style. Were you to provide credit/identification for each indent you put forward, you'd be making a lot more sense. As it is, your indents...which can run through several comments, and inlcude many different commentors, including yourself, are not at all intuitive to follow in any sense. They are dense, difficult to follow, and at times lacks a clear connection to your new comment. Instead of indenting and embedding each comment, you'd be better served attaching an ID tag to each comment.

"The best ringing endorsement of Vista I've read so far was somebody referring to it as ME 2.0."

Oh yeah. My wife is a computer nerd from a family of computer geeks. She can do just about anything she wants to with a computer in more computer languages then I can remember the names of.

Wanna hear her cuss enough to make even me blush? Put her in front of a computer running on ME and tell her to fix a problem on it. She hates ME. And the things I keep hearing about Vista are from friends, co-workers and the computer geeks at VITA is that it's at least slightly more annoying then ME.

Jerry Chandler: "She hates ME."

Why? What did you do? ;)

I got her knocked up and put her through just about eight months of major back aches and pains with a baby with GIANT feet kicking the crap out of her and then stood by as some masked men drugged her up and cut her open.

I've since been working to get back in good graces with regular foot rubs, back massages, gifts from For the Love of Chocolate and by not beating her cats senseless with a pool noodle. I also let her read Deathly Hallows before me, but it's finally mine and I'm down to the last couple of hundred pages!!!! ~8?)

Bill Myers: "My blog amounts to a public forum, however, and my regular posters and I are aware of that. I believe I speak for them as well as myself when I say that we're unashamed of what we've written and are confident that our words can and will withstand public scrutiny."

Of course. If we start worrying about how Mike can twist our words, and what disturbing conclusions he might derive from them we will all be forced to take a vow of silence. Mike's ability to twist words to fit his own delusional perceptions is already a matter of public record and nobody takes him seriously. Since Mike attributes his own meaning and/or attaches his own distorted perceptions to any written words, whenever he reads something (in our posts or elsewhere) he is basically talking to himself. There is no communication. And what you do or don't say to him, here or elsewhere, matters little. For him it is only like planks stolen from a construxction site and used as scafolding to construct another annex to his own delusions.

"Instead of indenting and embedding each comment, you'd be better served attaching an ID tag to each comment."

Or just simply say what he wants to say in a straight forward way.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...now your problem is clear. You're supposed to play with a pool CUE, not a pool noodle. I can see it now..."Seven ball covered in sauce in the corner pocket...." Although, if you're trying to beat the cats, try to keep them off the table, they might inadvertantly move one of the balls while chasing the pasta.

I kinda like one of Micha's ideas, so from here on in, all my posts will be YouTube links, where I shall post videos of myself doing interpretive dance in response to whatever our host or anybody else posts. Cover your eyes, and keep your feet away from mine!

Mike, I'm taking a Time Out from my ignoring you to comment on the "clarity" of your posting style. Were you to provide credit/identification for each indent you put forward, you'd be making a lot more sense. As it is, your indents...which can run through several comments, and include many different commentators, including yourself, are not at all intuitive to follow in any sense. They are dense, difficult to follow, and at times lacks a clear connection to your new comment. Instead of indenting and embedding each comment, you'd be better served attaching an ID tag to each comment.

Even if you can't be bothered to highlight the text you want to source in the very same page, hit Control-C, hit Control-F, hit Control-V, then hit Enter -- what is stopping you from evaluating any given quote on its own merits? Do you need each quote labeled by messenger to make exercising your biases easier in evaluating them? Don't you know "wrong" without knowing who it is that's being wrong?

I differentiate each voice with their own level of indentation. Quotes from posts of mine with embedded quotes lead into the embedded quotes with sentences ending in a colon.

Mike, thank you for obsessively reading my blog in an attempt to find fault with me and my friends. Clearly, you can't get enough of us. I'm afraid I don't have a similar interest in you, however, and can't be bothered to peruse your site. Because, y'know, you're quite vapid and boring.

What are you refering to Bill?

The link Mike keeps posting as an example of how Jerry believes his "account of another's state of mind trumps that person's [own account of his] state of mind" takes you to my blog. Apparently Mike goes there from time-to-time to dig up dirt on us.

If you check the date of the post I cite, you will see that it was posted during the Thanksgiving weekend you spent systematically venting your disgust in the thread Peter was forced to shut down. Your posts in that thread, like all your posts, link to your site. It was at a time I was still baffled by your behavior, so I visited your site, and found the quote.

When it was time to demonstrate Jerry's pattern of arbitrarily dismissing others' accounts of what they're experiencing when his own account of what they are experiencing is more convenient to him, it was no hardship to find it in that holiday weekend you devoted to venting disgust on a human being who couldn't get a cop, who was also venting disgust on him, to rule out the option of posting the personal contact info of the recipient of his disgust.

The only virtue of you portraying what I've just recounted as obsessive on my part seems also to qualify as an arbitrary, however preemptive, dismissal of my own account of my own experiences. Doing so seems to be your only hope in disqualifying anything I say.

If you're open to any constructive criticism, I also saw a page you intended to be the splash page of a comic book story, with a seated newscaster in the foreground, and an active costumed figure framed in a telescreen in the background. If you are still considering this as your splash, I think you should consider at least switching their prominence, with the costumed figure looming large, and the newscaster diminished in the foreground. As a montage, you can fit in more panels in sequence, making the splash more active.

Of course. If we start worrying about how Mike can twist our words, and what disturbing conclusions he might derive from them we will all be forced to take a vow of silence. Mike's ability to twist words to fit his own delusional perceptions is already a matter of public record and nobody takes him seriously. Since Mike attributes his own meaning and/or attaches his own distorted perceptions to any written words, whenever he reads something (in our posts or elsewhere) he is basically talking to himself. There is no communication. And what you do or don't say to him, here or elsewhere, matters little. For him it is only like planks stolen from a construxction site and used as scafolding to construct another annex to his own delusions.

Instead of indenting and embedding each comment, you'd be better served attaching an ID tag to each comment.

Or just simply say what he wants to say in a straight forward way.

Setting aside your unbroken tradition on not citing an example: how does what you accuse me of -- arbitrarily imposing interpretations of what others say according to what conveniences me -- not qualify as straightforward? If what I say isn't straightforward, then how do you know it's wrong?

Engaging Mike-to-English™ programming. Text translation enabled. "In A Nutshell" programing engaged.
________________________________________________________

Posted by: Mike at August 2, 2007 09:39 PM
I like stringing lots of big words together. Look at the pretty words. Ohhhhhhhhh. Uhm, have I taken my meds today?

Posted by: Mike at August 2, 2007 10:20 PM
I can't find my meds. Can you find them for me? No? Oh well, I'll just have to get by without them. No one should be able to tell the dif... Do I smell pie? Is that pie? I like pie. Uhm... What was I doing again?

Sean Scullion: "I kinda like one of Micha's ideas, so from here on in, all my posts will be YouTube links, where I shall post videos of myself doing interpretive dance in response to whatever our host or anybody else posts. Cover your eyes, and keep your feet away from mine!"

If we cover our eyes, how do we see the interpretive dance to try and figure out what you're saying to us? Or are you gong to be doing interpretive tap-dance and using yout feet to tap out Morse code blog posts? I haven't brushed up on my Morse since high school.

Micha: "For him it is only like planks stolen from a construxction site and used as scafolding to construct another annex to his own delusions."

Ohhh... I like that. I'm swiping that one from you for my own later use one day down the road.

If you check the date of the post I cite, you will see that it was posted during the Thanksgiving weekend you spent systematically venting your disgust in the thread Peter was forced to shut down. Your posts in that thread, like all your posts, link to your site. It was at a time I was still baffled by your behavior, so I visited your site, and found the quote.

When it was time to demonstrate Jerry's pattern of arbitrarily dismissing others' accounts of what they're experiencing when his own account of what they are experiencing is more convenient to him, it was no hardship to find it in that holiday weekend you devoted to venting disgust on a human being who couldn't get a cop, who was also venting disgust on him, to rule out the option of posting the personal contact info of the recipient of his disgust.

I like stringing lots of big words together. Look at the pretty words. Ohhhhhhhhh. Uhm, have I taken my meds today?...

I can't find my meds. Can you find them for me? No? Oh well, I'll just have to get by without them. No one should be able to tell the dif... Do I smell pie? Is that pie? I like pie. Uhm... What was I doing again?

Thank you for confirming my observation by responding with the exact behavior I was referring to. You're so willing to indulge in what I simply observe you doing, it's a wonder anything I say antagonizes you.

Hey, Jerry, trust me, man, you don't wanna SEE this Celt dance. Take my word for it. You wanna risk blindness asd reading Dr. Seuss to Ian in Braile, hey, look all you want. I'm just thinking of you. And I don't want Jenn coming after me for turning you into Jerry LaForge.

Numfar! Do the dance of joy!

Numfar, numthin', I mean, nothin', I do the Balki Bartakamous Mypos dance of joy! Now, who wants to stand in for Cousin Larry? Get outta town!

Yeah, I do have a head full of useless TV knowledge. But maybe someday I'll get on Millionaire or Jeopardy or the entire internet community will get together a fund to make me shut up.

Sean: "I kinda like one of Micha's ideas, so from here on in, all my posts will be YouTube links, where I shall post videos of myself doing interpretive dance in response to whatever our host or anybody else posts."

Did you ever watch 'The Actor's Studio'? When I read your post I had an image from the chapter when they had Robin Williams, and he did a dance bit. Although in your case I think it's going to be more like Riverdance.

Bill Mulligan: "Numfar! Do the dance of joy!"

I remember the Dance of Joy. But who or what is Numfar?

I used to watch the show with Balki Bartakamous (Perfect Strangers?) on Jordanian TV back in the late 80's. But when I lived a year in the US my perception of the show changed since I realised I was Balki, or at least that's what people thought of me because of my accent (very strange).

Jerry: "Ohhh... I like that. I'm swiping that one from you for my own later use one day down the road."

Thanks, sure, go ahead. No copyright sign on these words.

"Although in your case I think it's going to be more like Riverdance."

Well of course, Micha! It'll be a (wait for it...)streaming video!

You know what I was thinking last night? The foulmouthed line cutter from the PAD's original post told him that he had no idea who he was dealing with. On the contrary, the twit in question had no idea. Where PAD will be deposited into what is surely an ever-increasing list of people who'd shown him up, this guy runs the risk of being portrayed in a future printed work as the Prime Master of Mouthing Off Who Gets His Just Desserts And Is Swallowed By A Large Monster Or Some Other Example Of Poetic Justice.

I remember the Dance of Joy. But who or what is Numfar?

Numfar was Lorne's brother (this si all from Angel, for anyone who didn't watch the show...which is now on DVD, there's no longer an excuse). He was played by...Joss Whedon!

Oh heck, here's the scene: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IBUghm8I2zM

"Numfar was Lorne's brother (this si all from Angel, for anyone who didn't watch the show...which is now on DVD, there's no longer an excuse). He was played by...Joss Whedon!"

Oh! how embarassing. I should have remembered that. The name did sound familiar. I didn't know it was Joss Whedon. Whedon also had a guest appearance in Veronica Mars.

Was he also doused in green makep in Veronica Mars?

I keed, I know he wasn't, although that would also have been amusing. I'm going to have to go check my DVD collection now. I can't believe I missed that he cast himself as a dancing fool.

Sean wrote, "On the contrary, the twit in question had no idea.... this guy runs the risk of being portrayed in a future printed work as the Prime Master of Mouthing Off Who Gets His Just Desserts And Is Swallowed By A Large Monster Or Some Other Example Of Poetic Justice."

Good point. I've not made a comment on this thread as yet, since I don't have any airport stories to share; but as a writer who agrees with JMS's statement that you should never piss off a writer, I'd encourage PAD to put this person in one of his stories and have the Fates use him as the ball in a handball competition.

I recently had a run in with a, shall we say, miscreant who inspired me to write a murder mystery short story. Miss Creant's doppleganger plays the corpse of honor.

Rick

P.S. On another note, Fallen Angel came out last week, and after my store failed to get two consecutive issues- despite the fact that it's on my pull list- they had it this time. Will there be a discussion thread about the issue, PAD?

I'd like to know what happened to british horror film writer Milton Subotsky that made him hat the name Maitland so much. Watch any Amicus horror movie and if there's a character named maitland, don't get emotionally attached to him--The Skull, The Vault of Horror, Tales from the Crypt, probably others. I'll bet little Dickie maitland truly regrets all those wedgies he gave the Subotsky kid way back when.

Then again, DEEP RISING has a character named mulligan eaten, digested and vomited up by a giant squid so who knows who I pissed off.

I saw a "Look Back" type of thing done on The Skull some years back when they where showing it on cable for the Halloween season. They mentioned the Maitland name curse thing and went into how nobody had any idea what caused him to seem to hate that name like he did. They even showed a clip with Subotsky's son, Dimitri, and even he didn't know the reason why.

Watch the 'Maitland' connection. Cushing's character is named Christopher Maitland - the name is a death sentence in an Amicus film. The use of the name was the product of Milton Subotsky's mind but no one knows if there was ever a real Maitland to inspire such a curse on a name. I had the opportunity to chat with Subotsky's son, Dimitri, and even he did not know the true reason.

Ok, I lost the middle of my post. It was supposed to go like this:
________________________________________

There's also a page on a Peter Cushing site I like that says roughly the same thing as the cable clip.

http://www.petercushing.co.uk/skull.htm

"Watch the 'Maitland' connection. Cushing's character is named Christopher Maitland - the name is a death sentence in an Amicus film. The use of the name was the product of Milton Subotsky's mind but no one knows if there was ever a real Maitland to inspire such a curse on a name. I had the opportunity to chat with Subotsky's son, Dimitri, and even he did not know the true reason.
_______________________________________________

Don't know how I got it that messed up. ~8?O