[blah] writes...
I can also make away with your wallet too and take all your cash too
Yup, and spend that $20 to $50 I occasionally keep in my wallet, how many times ?
That's right. Once.
My Magic Money Card and keeps on giving and requires no pin or signature in order to use it, is the gold mine for the desperate opportunist. Any cash found alone side it is a mere bonus.
I think this is done to death and should be stopped now.
Code for "my continued defense of and arguing for the paypass system that requires no pin or signature and allows me to lend my card to my best mate who doesn't qualify for credit, so he can head down to Maccas to pick me up a feed while I'm busy on whirlpool, has failed to suitably address either the gross insecurities of such a system or how unethical it is for the banks and credit card companies to push such a dangerously flawed system upon the public ... so the discussion should be stopped lest the POV shared that differs from mine gains too much support." ?
In short, you are on the losing side of the argument and so want the discussion stopped.
My view is that the more PAYPASS cards that are distributed, the more likely carriers of such unsecure cards will be mugged for them ... and violently so in order to get the maximum use of the card before they can be reported missing.
That the more PAYPASS cards that are distributed, the more likely carriers of such unsecure cards will, one way or another, end up sharing their card with someone else, coz it is "oh so convenient coz no pin or signature is needed".
The credit card companies don't really care for they will still be reaping the rewards of the transactions.
In fact, they are probably laughing very loudly to themselves when they think of how they have managed to come up with a way for unauthorised people to access credit while making the actual card holders responsible for it.
regarDS
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Thursday, August 19, 2010
"HumphreyB vs Abbott" rescued from blatting. :)
As is my tradition in relation to posts I make in public forums that for one unjust reason or another end up blatted, I've recreated here a recent message that received that attention, and no doubt at "special request" and summons. ;)
Yeah I saw certain folk log in, and what do you know, the following message from over 60 posts earlier, strangely disappeared without a trace.
Thank goodness for extensive secondary archives, eh ?
So, here is MIA post 573 from the "Election 10" thread at the www.behindthebox.com.au forums.
-=-=-=-=-
Monday 16/08 Q&A ... Tony Jones and stacked audience (with photos to prove it ) vs Tony Abbott.
Last week, Guile-ard was in the "hot seat" ... except she apparently had advance notice of the questions ... and my how she droned on and was utterly uninspiring.
Tonight, Abbott is in the "hot seat" and Tony Jones informs all and sundry that none of the questions are pre-known to Abbott.
Abbott proves to be both engaging, convincing, and clearly up to the task ... and by the look of him, he has certainly weathered the campaign trail far better than Jaded Jools.
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/620705
Oh, and speaking of jaded, howz this qanda audience at minute mark 42.09ish !?
Obviously most folk filmed at that point were "Not Happy Jan" that Abbott was able to answer everything so politely, approachably ... and sensibly.
Obviously some folk in the audience weren't happy at all at how much Abbott was the better man !
Hint: BTBers will prolly wanna watch from minute mark 44:44
A bigger hint ? Ok, try:
A moment of prayer ?
A tongue-poke bit of flirting with a fellow Roman Catholic ?
A synchronized example of the famous Trendy Lefty "head tilt" ?
A semi/half hidden "shaka sign" ... or was it a "fair shake of the sauce bottle" ?
Anyhoo, congrats on getting your question in HumphreyB, even if it was too clever by half and only provided Abbott with the opportunity to say what he wanted to say and further promote what you would rather be deemed irrelevant.
[Morning after ADIT] BTW, the above images are hardly the first seen in all their glory on the BTB forums ... though it may well be the first revealing of a snappy tie tied well. For comparitive reference see the BTB posts here, here, and here for starters. Yes, I've obviously just [adit]ed this because of a presumed likelyhood of 3rd parties to raise an ignorant "waa" where none is warranted.
[ADIT++] For those who don't wanna watch qanda to hear HumphreyB's qanda question to Tony Abbot, here it is as presented at Our, um, Their (the left's) ABC qanda webpage here
Anyhoo, I found that the compassionate and concerned pity in Abbott's eyes as the question was read to him, quite moving.
regarDS
Yeah I saw certain folk log in, and what do you know, the following message from over 60 posts earlier, strangely disappeared without a trace.
Thank goodness for extensive secondary archives, eh ?
So, here is MIA post 573 from the "Election 10" thread at the www.behindthebox.com.au forums.
-=-=-=-=-
Monday 16/08 Q&A ... Tony Jones and stacked audience (with photos to prove it ) vs Tony Abbott.
Last week, Guile-ard was in the "hot seat" ... except she apparently had advance notice of the questions ... and my how she droned on and was utterly uninspiring.
Tonight, Abbott is in the "hot seat" and Tony Jones informs all and sundry that none of the questions are pre-known to Abbott.
Abbott proves to be both engaging, convincing, and clearly up to the task ... and by the look of him, he has certainly weathered the campaign trail far better than Jaded Jools.
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/620705
Oh, and speaking of jaded, howz this qanda audience at minute mark 42.09ish !?
Obviously most folk filmed at that point were "Not Happy Jan" that Abbott was able to answer everything so politely, approachably ... and sensibly.
Obviously some folk in the audience weren't happy at all at how much Abbott was the better man !
Hint: BTBers will prolly wanna watch from minute mark 44:44
A bigger hint ? Ok, try:
A moment of prayer ?
A tongue-poke bit of flirting with a fellow Roman Catholic ?
A synchronized example of the famous Trendy Lefty "head tilt" ?
A semi/half hidden "shaka sign" ... or was it a "fair shake of the sauce bottle" ?
Anyhoo, congrats on getting your question in HumphreyB, even if it was too clever by half and only provided Abbott with the opportunity to say what he wanted to say and further promote what you would rather be deemed irrelevant.
[Morning after ADIT] BTW, the above images are hardly the first seen in all their glory on the BTB forums ... though it may well be the first revealing of a snappy tie tied well. For comparitive reference see the BTB posts here, here, and here for starters. Yes, I've obviously just [adit]ed this because of a presumed likelyhood of 3rd parties to raise an ignorant "waa" where none is warranted.
[ADIT++] For those who don't wanna watch qanda to hear HumphreyB's qanda question to Tony Abbot, here it is as presented at Our, um, Their (the left's) ABC qanda webpage here
Mr Abbott, are you aware that by using your boat phone, you might be contravening Article 32 of the UNHCR Convention that refers to state obligations in regard to refugees – that “(THE) State shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory except on grounds of national security or public order...?”I guess nobody told our HumphreyB that "boatphone" was nothing more than an a failed attempt at a smear and joke invented by the Trendy Lefty journalists and fellow "look@me" twittering wannabees for the day, and that the original interview and report mentioned no such thing ... but that's the Trendy Lefties for ya; always trying to suggest something is there when it is not. Unicorns are their stock in trade after all.
Anyhoo, I found that the compassionate and concerned pity in Abbott's eyes as the question was read to him, quite moving.
regarDS
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
TDnME
The following is a post from a forum elsewhere that had a bit of a melt-down yesterday. I've put this up in case anything still needs to be said away from the actual forum and without fear of moderation.
By the same token, comments containing outright abuse/profanity will prolly be rejected (or censored before posting) in order to keep to the "family rating" of this blog.
Also, I'm happy to remove this very post and put this particular blog into "hide from the public" mode again if TD wishes it.
Anyhoo, here tis:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Oi TD, come back !
BTW folks, I don't think TD hates me ... we have our periodic jousting but for a long time I've thought that she actually gets me (which doesn't mean "agrees with me") and that she knows I bear no malice towards her or anyone else but rather see this forum as one big wonderful dysfunctional family ... a bit like the very Big Brother show that brought us all together in the first place.
My view is that TD and I have mutual respect for each other and I actually read bro/sis type toothless bickering into our more pop-corn worthy exchanges. If you care to go back through my posts directly to her you will tend to see lots of me NOT rising to the bite that can be expected of me in other circumstances, but instead lots of smilies, self-deprecation, looking past the jibes, and answering sarcasm seriously.
As I said, mutual respect ... even if she doesn't care to admit it. TD knows I care about her as best I can around here and that despite any insult or jibe she choses to throw my way, that ain't going to change.
We're all in this BB house called "planet earth" together, and rest assured there is no small audience watching and aware of our every move, and some, aware of our every thought too.
So, back to putting on a good show ?
For that we most certainly still need our TD !
regarDS
-=-=-=-
regarDS
By the same token, comments containing outright abuse/profanity will prolly be rejected (or censored before posting) in order to keep to the "family rating" of this blog.
Also, I'm happy to remove this very post and put this particular blog into "hide from the public" mode again if TD wishes it.
Anyhoo, here tis:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Oi TD, come back !
BTW folks, I don't think TD hates me ... we have our periodic jousting but for a long time I've thought that she actually gets me (which doesn't mean "agrees with me") and that she knows I bear no malice towards her or anyone else but rather see this forum as one big wonderful dysfunctional family ... a bit like the very Big Brother show that brought us all together in the first place.
My view is that TD and I have mutual respect for each other and I actually read bro/sis type toothless bickering into our more pop-corn worthy exchanges. If you care to go back through my posts directly to her you will tend to see lots of me NOT rising to the bite that can be expected of me in other circumstances, but instead lots of smilies, self-deprecation, looking past the jibes, and answering sarcasm seriously.
As I said, mutual respect ... even if she doesn't care to admit it. TD knows I care about her as best I can around here and that despite any insult or jibe she choses to throw my way, that ain't going to change.
We're all in this BB house called "planet earth" together, and rest assured there is no small audience watching and aware of our every move, and some, aware of our every thought too.
So, back to putting on a good show ?
For that we most certainly still need our TD !
regarDS
-=-=-=-
regarDS
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A peek into the mind of a True Believer AGW religonist ?
Every now and then in Forum Land (that place where the anonymous pretend to be what they are not or cannot be, where there be trolls to feed, spellings to be corrected, and Important Issues to be "waa, waa, waa"ed about, etc) , one encounters true Gold in the form of some True Believer religious nutter obliviously exposing just how dishonest they are being to themselves and others. All as a make-believe 'persona", But Of Course ... ;)
The instance I encountered features an alleged Roman Catholic (dunno why somebody would choose one of them as their persona, but hey, it takes all types ...) who in the past has confessed to not even reading through the ancient texts deemed sacred to his chosen religion, but instead seems quite content to merely accept the wafflings of the priesthood that accompany that particular religion ... well, at least the wafflings that conveniently resonate with his chosen largely ignorant view.
No surprises that the views he has chosen to share in that regard are easily shown to be considerably distant to "what is written". But that is another story. :) ;)
With that in mind, it should also come as no small surprise that this funny old fellow should similarly accept seemingly without question the priesthood of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, or "Man-made climate change" if you prefer) environmentalist religion.
After all, "blind faith" in those whose views he agrees with seem to be his preferred way to get through life.
The scary thing though is that just as he seems to be blindly happy to accept that which is fed to him by his various chosen priesthoods, it would also appear that in turn he not only expects others to similarly adopt his faith in priesthoods, but also expects his views to be accepted without question !
Like breeding like, and all that ?
Anyhoo, here is the recent exchange that I think gives quite an instructive look into the mindset of those worthy of the tag "True Believers", whether they be 'personas" or not.
The anonymous internut/forum identity/persona calls himself "HumphreyB", and for a time sported as an avatar a picture of his namesake, a well-known (from yesteryear) Oz TV character created for children's television, called "Humphrey B Bear".
It begins with me asking HumphreyB the question "Seriously, do you REALLY believe that it is right that in recent years CO2 is suddenly being called "pollution" and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes/drives global climate ? Do you REALLY ?"
You can find the context here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1339786&postcount=799 , posted on the 7th of February, 2010
As this question required him to actually commit to a position that could be put to the test, I fully expected him to ignore it and that I'd have to put some work into drawing it out of him. He didn't disappoint. :)
So I reminded him of it again here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1339921&postcount=806 later that same day, but again (but of course) he ignored it.
So I reminded him of it again here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340050&postcount=820 on the 8th of February, also linking in the prior occasions of asking it, and here is that message:
SOQ
08-02-2010, 04:07 PM
HumphreyB: I have answered all your questions.
derspatz: Then you should have no problem of providing to the wider audience and archives your direct answer (and link where you first gave it) to my direct question of:
Cheers in advance for your polite and gentlemanly cooperation and assistance in that regard.
regarDS
EOQ
At last, he forgot himself and publicly committed to an answer that could be put to the test !
You can read his response here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340051&postcount=821 as posted on the 8th of February at 4:07pm, and the important bit reads "Yes, CO2 is causing global warming and should be cut. Hence, CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be cut down."
Cool ! Something to work on at last ! Time to test the mettle of a True Believer and see how they would deal with their faith being brought under the scrutiny of reason and logic.
Here is my response to his initial confession of faith, as I posted here barely an hour later: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340090&postcount=823
SOQ
08-02-2010, 05:09 PM
Backing up the confession of faith with works to prove it ...
HumphreyB: Yes, CO2 is causing global warming and should be cut. Hence, CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be cut down.
derspatz: Oh so you DIDN'T answer that before.
No worries, I'll take it that it was a mere oversight on your behalf rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid having to actually commit your belief to the public record and archives, and thank you for your candour.
My next question is this.
If it can be shown to you that CO2 is neither a pollutant needing "to be cut down", and that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels lag rather than lead periods of warming, will you abandon your belief in and support of the Anthropogenic Global Warming environmentalist religion and make a stand against the fraud and evil that is being attempted via the trojan horse it provides ?
Also, considering that civilisation has historically enjoyed (and prospered in) warmer periods than we currently are experiencing now, times that saw less ice but more rain, less desertification but more lakes and life-supporting biomass, etc, and that historically it is times of cooling that have always brought the most hardship, death, and extinctions upon the globe, why on earth are you resistant to the thought of a return to more pleasant and prosperous times as are typically provided by a warmer planet ?
On top of that, and back on the subject of global atmospheric CO2 levels (which currently is virtually at starvation levels for the bio-mass we depend upon), why on earth wouldn't you want a return to a presumed Edenic like balance of atmosphere that so favours bigger, better, healthier, and more fruitful plant-life ?
Do you REALLY think that (a) the climate of the planet is static, and (b) our current global climate is the ideal for life ?
Wouldn't you by far prefer a world where there is more accessible water and rainfall, where things grew bigger, better, healthier, and more fruitful, where there was more healthy soil and less ice-stripped mountains and wind-swept dustbowls and deserts, where Greenland could support forests and farmlands again (just like it did in Viking times), where the likes of Lake Chad in Africa returned to Lake Megachad dimensions, and near everyone everywhere was able to grow all the food they liked and starvation would become virtually extinct ?
Are you able to consider even for one moment, especially with all the power, government, banking big business and MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, etc, involved, coupled with typical human nature, that the whole AGW Alarmism thing seems to be more about fame and fortune than doing the right thing by humanity, and that no small number of questions are going begging for an accurate and truthful answer ?
What do you think would be so wrong with the planet returning to warmer times ?
Come, let us reason together and logically determine as thinking people not really any more nor less intelligent or capable of discovering and recognising truth than the thinking people who belong to the various religious priesthoods regardless of whether their religious persuasion is AGW Alarmism, or of one of the more traditional forms.
Are you able to set aside your blinkered view centred upon the various messengers and instead start hearing and seeing the message ?
If so, then let us begin. I eagerly await your frank and candid answers to the above sensible and reasonable non-messenger attacking questions, and similarly shall endeavour to give frank and candid answers to any questions you care to raise providing they too are about the message as opposed to attacking the messengers.
However, if it really is just a forum barny you are after, yeah, I'm happy to have that taken to the firepit and you can make a new attempt at testing your mettle against me.
regarDS
EOQ
All very polite and reasonable don't you think ?
However, what happened next is simply astounding and something I think worthy of repeating the storing of in the vast archives of the internut for history to judge.
Here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340151&postcount=825 you can see that all of a sudden he realises that by committing to position that can be shown to be false, he has been hoisted upon his own petard and/or put himself between the horns of a dilemma that surely would see any reasonable person admit they are in error and their faith unfounded and modify their thinking and stance accordingly.
Recognising his predicament and the certain very public destruction of his faith, near three hours later he opts for this:
SOQ
08-02-2010, 08:52 PM
derspatz: Seriously, do you REALLY believe that it is right that in recent years CO2 is suddenly being called "pollution" and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes/drives global climate ? Do you REALLY ?
HumphreyB: Actually, I retract that answer completely (by the way, I never know what question of yours to answer, because you smother any actual questions with so much cut and paste shit!).
I believe CO2 is actually magical fairy dust, given to us by God, which will reforest the world - even the deserts and the bald heads of men in the 30s and 40s. So, we should be making more of it. More and more, so the fields, rivers and seas should boil with it. Yay CO2!!! Magical Fairy Dust!!!!
EOQ
Dunno why he thought feigning madness might help him, or that such a retraction could be deemed anything other than an admission that he was fully aware that the dogmas and claims of the AGW environmentalist religion are supremely dodgy and that he was going to cling to them regardless of what Real Science was proving on the subject.
What a funny old fellow is Humphrey indeed !
In fact, I was so astounded by his flying-off-the-handle hot-headed cut-off-his-nose-to-spite-his-face stubborn response that I thought I'd give him a 24hr cooling off period to see if a new day would see him in a more constructive and less embarrassing state of mind and that he would man up and deal with his dilemma in an open and reasonable way.
24hrs came and went, so rather bother wasting effort trying to again nail down an obviously time wasting and deliberately clueless True Believer, I posted this: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340439&postcount=826 along with a quickly concocted youtube that more succinctly summed up what HumphreyB chose to do rather than have his religion brought down around his furry ears.
Oh, as for the "Mecca" reference, True Believer HumphreyB had previously likened folk who had gone to any of the debates and seminars put on by Chris Monckton and Ian Plimer as being like "religious excursions to mecca" or words to that nature. Real "Pot. Kettle. Black." stuff. :)
"HACC" is another "in joke" to the forum ... HumphreyB has a bit of a bee in his bonnet when it comes to journalists who don't share his somewhat left of centre political and religious outlook. Those he cannot bring himself to agree with in any way, he labels as "hacks", and he made up some long and convoluted instantly forgettable acronym to commemorate his bloody minded view. However, because the vain old poor dear does like to feel relevant and noticed I thought I'd give the dog a bone by including the part of his efforts that best resembled an understandable word. :)
Oh++ HumphreyB is also prone to "look over there, a unicorn" type responses when attempting to join in on political discussions. ie, he would rather bash on about the previous government and what they might have done, than admit much as to what the current government ARE doing. Hence the "Howard" reference, with "Howard" being the Prime Minister of Oz prior to the current dangerously inept government led by the public servant who signs off all his twitter posts as "KRudd".
SOQ
10-02-2010, 12:27 AM
Back from a pilgrimage to Mecca ...
HumphreyB: Actually, I retract that answer completely (by the way, I never know what question of yours to answer, because you smother any actual questions with so much cut and paste shit!).
I believe CO2 is actually magical fairy dust, given to us by God, which will reforest the world - even the deserts and the bald heads of men in the 30s and 40s. So, we should be making more of it. More and more, so the fields, rivers and seas should boil with it. Yay CO2!!! Magical Fairy Dust!!!!
derspatz: Oh HumphreyB.
I thought I'd give you at least 24hrs to change your mind about your above quoted cringe-worthy and embarrassing response to my fair, reasonable, and even gentlemanly challenge, but I guess I'm waiting in vain, especially considering that instead of you opting for the higher road and breaking out of your vicious cycle of attacking the messenger rather than debating the message, you instead took the familiar "Waa, Howard !" road.
Oh well. Your life, your choice.
Anyhoo, I hope you'll be suitably flattered by my efforts this evening to find a suitable way to commemorate and honour your choice NOT to have your faith in the AGW environmentalist religion, put to the test.
I decided to HACC it together while riding Der Ratte back from a pilgrimage to Mecca this evening.
For this "people watcher", it was quite fascinating. Although virtually everything covered was old and familiar news to me, it was quite obvious by various gasps and rumbles from certain demographics in the audience, that perhaps they should forget about and turn off the lollypop MSM T.V. news and instead spend more time learning how to internut !
Before it began I was a little bit worried that the presentation was going to start off like when I went along to a One Nation / Pauline Hansen Town Hall meeting, and another time when I thought I'd check out first hand the "Rodney Howard Brown" "Toronto Blessing" thang.
You know how those sorts of things can attract certain "in your face" wild eyed fringe elements.
I needn't have worried ... near everyone was dignified and well behaved, well, except for the odd moment from a bold and intense confessed ETS supporter sitting behind me who couldn't help but slip out the odd "lies ... it's all lies" to the people next to him. Heh.
No, I didn't bother to offer a question, nor even meet either Plimer or Monckton.
AFAIC, we're all just foot-soldiers who have been inspired one way or another to do a particular job and play a particular role for now, and shall sink back into the everyday when it has been completed. Some break the ground, others sow, yet others reap, and others just sit around under a tree with a bit of straw in their cap while puffing out a familiar tune on a dented and scratched harp.
Besides, I was in a hurry to get home so I could do this:
Yeah, HumphreyB, you're just ALWAYS on my mind.
regarDS
EOQ
Yes, he "bravely ran away", and AFAIC, by doing so provided quite an insight into the mindset of a True Believer ... as well as no small amount of entertainment - well, at least for this little bird who can't help but chirp joyfully when folk choose to pwn themselves with their own words.
These days, rather than be faced with accidentally having his blind faith put to the test in such a way again and example a similar epic fail and be so pwned by his own words, he apparently has me on "ignore".
Which in itself is yet another insight into the mindset of a True Believer. :)
Anyhoo, anyone else out there have encountered mindsets, attitudes and responses similar to that just exampled by the anonymous internut forum fake identity/persona going by the nick of HumphreyB ?
If so, how did you choose to deal with their religious fundamentalism and denialism ?
With a laugh and turning it into entertainment like I've attempted ?
BTW, I'm of the view that in fact there is nothing wrong with feeding a troll, providing that what you are attempting to feed them with is not actually what they want to be eating. :)
Especially feed them that which makes entertainment of them !
regarDS
PS: For a post-note, see: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340860&postcount=828 ;)
The instance I encountered features an alleged Roman Catholic (dunno why somebody would choose one of them as their persona, but hey, it takes all types ...) who in the past has confessed to not even reading through the ancient texts deemed sacred to his chosen religion, but instead seems quite content to merely accept the wafflings of the priesthood that accompany that particular religion ... well, at least the wafflings that conveniently resonate with his chosen largely ignorant view.
No surprises that the views he has chosen to share in that regard are easily shown to be considerably distant to "what is written". But that is another story. :) ;)
With that in mind, it should also come as no small surprise that this funny old fellow should similarly accept seemingly without question the priesthood of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, or "Man-made climate change" if you prefer) environmentalist religion.
After all, "blind faith" in those whose views he agrees with seem to be his preferred way to get through life.
The scary thing though is that just as he seems to be blindly happy to accept that which is fed to him by his various chosen priesthoods, it would also appear that in turn he not only expects others to similarly adopt his faith in priesthoods, but also expects his views to be accepted without question !
Like breeding like, and all that ?
Anyhoo, here is the recent exchange that I think gives quite an instructive look into the mindset of those worthy of the tag "True Believers", whether they be 'personas" or not.
The anonymous internut/forum identity/persona calls himself "HumphreyB", and for a time sported as an avatar a picture of his namesake, a well-known (from yesteryear) Oz TV character created for children's television, called "Humphrey B Bear".
It begins with me asking HumphreyB the question "Seriously, do you REALLY believe that it is right that in recent years CO2 is suddenly being called "pollution" and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes/drives global climate ? Do you REALLY ?"
You can find the context here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1339786&postcount=799 , posted on the 7th of February, 2010
As this question required him to actually commit to a position that could be put to the test, I fully expected him to ignore it and that I'd have to put some work into drawing it out of him. He didn't disappoint. :)
So I reminded him of it again here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1339921&postcount=806 later that same day, but again (but of course) he ignored it.
So I reminded him of it again here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340050&postcount=820 on the 8th of February, also linking in the prior occasions of asking it, and here is that message:
SOQ
08-02-2010, 04:07 PM
HumphreyB: I have answered all your questions.
derspatz: Then you should have no problem of providing to the wider audience and archives your direct answer (and link where you first gave it) to my direct question of:
"Seriously, do you REALLY believe that it is right that in recent years CO2 is suddenly being called "pollution" and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes/drives global climate ? Do you REALLY ?"as asked for the second and third times http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1339921&postcount=806, hmmm ?
Cheers in advance for your polite and gentlemanly cooperation and assistance in that regard.
regarDS
EOQ
At last, he forgot himself and publicly committed to an answer that could be put to the test !
You can read his response here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340051&postcount=821 as posted on the 8th of February at 4:07pm, and the important bit reads "Yes, CO2 is causing global warming and should be cut. Hence, CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be cut down."
Cool ! Something to work on at last ! Time to test the mettle of a True Believer and see how they would deal with their faith being brought under the scrutiny of reason and logic.
Here is my response to his initial confession of faith, as I posted here barely an hour later: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340090&postcount=823
SOQ
08-02-2010, 05:09 PM
Backing up the confession of faith with works to prove it ...
HumphreyB: Yes, CO2 is causing global warming and should be cut. Hence, CO2 is a pollutant that needs to be cut down.
derspatz: Oh so you DIDN'T answer that before.
No worries, I'll take it that it was a mere oversight on your behalf rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid having to actually commit your belief to the public record and archives, and thank you for your candour.
My next question is this.
If it can be shown to you that CO2 is neither a pollutant needing "to be cut down", and that rises in atmospheric CO2 levels lag rather than lead periods of warming, will you abandon your belief in and support of the Anthropogenic Global Warming environmentalist religion and make a stand against the fraud and evil that is being attempted via the trojan horse it provides ?
Also, considering that civilisation has historically enjoyed (and prospered in) warmer periods than we currently are experiencing now, times that saw less ice but more rain, less desertification but more lakes and life-supporting biomass, etc, and that historically it is times of cooling that have always brought the most hardship, death, and extinctions upon the globe, why on earth are you resistant to the thought of a return to more pleasant and prosperous times as are typically provided by a warmer planet ?
On top of that, and back on the subject of global atmospheric CO2 levels (which currently is virtually at starvation levels for the bio-mass we depend upon), why on earth wouldn't you want a return to a presumed Edenic like balance of atmosphere that so favours bigger, better, healthier, and more fruitful plant-life ?
Do you REALLY think that (a) the climate of the planet is static, and (b) our current global climate is the ideal for life ?
Wouldn't you by far prefer a world where there is more accessible water and rainfall, where things grew bigger, better, healthier, and more fruitful, where there was more healthy soil and less ice-stripped mountains and wind-swept dustbowls and deserts, where Greenland could support forests and farmlands again (just like it did in Viking times), where the likes of Lake Chad in Africa returned to Lake Megachad dimensions, and near everyone everywhere was able to grow all the food they liked and starvation would become virtually extinct ?
Are you able to consider even for one moment, especially with all the power, government, banking big business and MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, etc, involved, coupled with typical human nature, that the whole AGW Alarmism thing seems to be more about fame and fortune than doing the right thing by humanity, and that no small number of questions are going begging for an accurate and truthful answer ?
What do you think would be so wrong with the planet returning to warmer times ?
Come, let us reason together and logically determine as thinking people not really any more nor less intelligent or capable of discovering and recognising truth than the thinking people who belong to the various religious priesthoods regardless of whether their religious persuasion is AGW Alarmism, or of one of the more traditional forms.
Are you able to set aside your blinkered view centred upon the various messengers and instead start hearing and seeing the message ?
If so, then let us begin. I eagerly await your frank and candid answers to the above sensible and reasonable non-messenger attacking questions, and similarly shall endeavour to give frank and candid answers to any questions you care to raise providing they too are about the message as opposed to attacking the messengers.
However, if it really is just a forum barny you are after, yeah, I'm happy to have that taken to the firepit and you can make a new attempt at testing your mettle against me.
regarDS
EOQ
All very polite and reasonable don't you think ?
However, what happened next is simply astounding and something I think worthy of repeating the storing of in the vast archives of the internut for history to judge.
Here: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340151&postcount=825 you can see that all of a sudden he realises that by committing to position that can be shown to be false, he has been hoisted upon his own petard and/or put himself between the horns of a dilemma that surely would see any reasonable person admit they are in error and their faith unfounded and modify their thinking and stance accordingly.
Recognising his predicament and the certain very public destruction of his faith, near three hours later he opts for this:
SOQ
08-02-2010, 08:52 PM
derspatz: Seriously, do you REALLY believe that it is right that in recent years CO2 is suddenly being called "pollution" and that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels causes/drives global climate ? Do you REALLY ?
HumphreyB: Actually, I retract that answer completely (by the way, I never know what question of yours to answer, because you smother any actual questions with so much cut and paste shit!).
I believe CO2 is actually magical fairy dust, given to us by God, which will reforest the world - even the deserts and the bald heads of men in the 30s and 40s. So, we should be making more of it. More and more, so the fields, rivers and seas should boil with it. Yay CO2!!! Magical Fairy Dust!!!!
EOQ
Dunno why he thought feigning madness might help him, or that such a retraction could be deemed anything other than an admission that he was fully aware that the dogmas and claims of the AGW environmentalist religion are supremely dodgy and that he was going to cling to them regardless of what Real Science was proving on the subject.
What a funny old fellow is Humphrey indeed !
In fact, I was so astounded by his flying-off-the-handle hot-headed cut-off-his-nose-to-spite-his-face stubborn response that I thought I'd give him a 24hr cooling off period to see if a new day would see him in a more constructive and less embarrassing state of mind and that he would man up and deal with his dilemma in an open and reasonable way.
24hrs came and went, so rather bother wasting effort trying to again nail down an obviously time wasting and deliberately clueless True Believer, I posted this: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340439&postcount=826 along with a quickly concocted youtube that more succinctly summed up what HumphreyB chose to do rather than have his religion brought down around his furry ears.
Oh, as for the "Mecca" reference, True Believer HumphreyB had previously likened folk who had gone to any of the debates and seminars put on by Chris Monckton and Ian Plimer as being like "religious excursions to mecca" or words to that nature. Real "Pot. Kettle. Black." stuff. :)
"HACC" is another "in joke" to the forum ... HumphreyB has a bit of a bee in his bonnet when it comes to journalists who don't share his somewhat left of centre political and religious outlook. Those he cannot bring himself to agree with in any way, he labels as "hacks", and he made up some long and convoluted instantly forgettable acronym to commemorate his bloody minded view. However, because the vain old poor dear does like to feel relevant and noticed I thought I'd give the dog a bone by including the part of his efforts that best resembled an understandable word. :)
Oh++ HumphreyB is also prone to "look over there, a unicorn" type responses when attempting to join in on political discussions. ie, he would rather bash on about the previous government and what they might have done, than admit much as to what the current government ARE doing. Hence the "Howard" reference, with "Howard" being the Prime Minister of Oz prior to the current dangerously inept government led by the public servant who signs off all his twitter posts as "KRudd".
SOQ
10-02-2010, 12:27 AM
Back from a pilgrimage to Mecca ...
HumphreyB: Actually, I retract that answer completely (by the way, I never know what question of yours to answer, because you smother any actual questions with so much cut and paste shit!).
I believe CO2 is actually magical fairy dust, given to us by God, which will reforest the world - even the deserts and the bald heads of men in the 30s and 40s. So, we should be making more of it. More and more, so the fields, rivers and seas should boil with it. Yay CO2!!! Magical Fairy Dust!!!!
derspatz: Oh HumphreyB.
I thought I'd give you at least 24hrs to change your mind about your above quoted cringe-worthy and embarrassing response to my fair, reasonable, and even gentlemanly challenge, but I guess I'm waiting in vain, especially considering that instead of you opting for the higher road and breaking out of your vicious cycle of attacking the messenger rather than debating the message, you instead took the familiar "Waa, Howard !" road.
Oh well. Your life, your choice.
Anyhoo, I hope you'll be suitably flattered by my efforts this evening to find a suitable way to commemorate and honour your choice NOT to have your faith in the AGW environmentalist religion, put to the test.
I decided to HACC it together while riding Der Ratte back from a pilgrimage to Mecca this evening.
For this "people watcher", it was quite fascinating. Although virtually everything covered was old and familiar news to me, it was quite obvious by various gasps and rumbles from certain demographics in the audience, that perhaps they should forget about and turn off the lollypop MSM T.V. news and instead spend more time learning how to internut !
Before it began I was a little bit worried that the presentation was going to start off like when I went along to a One Nation / Pauline Hansen Town Hall meeting, and another time when I thought I'd check out first hand the "Rodney Howard Brown" "Toronto Blessing" thang.
You know how those sorts of things can attract certain "in your face" wild eyed fringe elements.
I needn't have worried ... near everyone was dignified and well behaved, well, except for the odd moment from a bold and intense confessed ETS supporter sitting behind me who couldn't help but slip out the odd "lies ... it's all lies" to the people next to him. Heh.
No, I didn't bother to offer a question, nor even meet either Plimer or Monckton.
AFAIC, we're all just foot-soldiers who have been inspired one way or another to do a particular job and play a particular role for now, and shall sink back into the everyday when it has been completed. Some break the ground, others sow, yet others reap, and others just sit around under a tree with a bit of straw in their cap while puffing out a familiar tune on a dented and scratched harp.
Besides, I was in a hurry to get home so I could do this:
Yeah, HumphreyB, you're just ALWAYS on my mind.
regarDS
EOQ
Yes, he "bravely ran away", and AFAIC, by doing so provided quite an insight into the mindset of a True Believer ... as well as no small amount of entertainment - well, at least for this little bird who can't help but chirp joyfully when folk choose to pwn themselves with their own words.
These days, rather than be faced with accidentally having his blind faith put to the test in such a way again and example a similar epic fail and be so pwned by his own words, he apparently has me on "ignore".
Which in itself is yet another insight into the mindset of a True Believer. :)
Anyhoo, anyone else out there have encountered mindsets, attitudes and responses similar to that just exampled by the anonymous internut forum fake identity/persona going by the nick of HumphreyB ?
If so, how did you choose to deal with their religious fundamentalism and denialism ?
With a laugh and turning it into entertainment like I've attempted ?
BTW, I'm of the view that in fact there is nothing wrong with feeding a troll, providing that what you are attempting to feed them with is not actually what they want to be eating. :)
Especially feed them that which makes entertainment of them !
regarDS
PS: For a post-note, see: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showpost.php?p=1340860&postcount=828 ;)
Saturday, July 25, 2009
"Queen Bees" and "Invading Poland"
The following more recent Moderation of yours truly was born out the situation where on two recent occasions a forum member somewhere created topics to try and rabble rouse to get members they didn't like or get along with, permanently banned from membership of that forum.
Their second attempt actually succeeded ... but with an opportunity cost that included a long standing and well respected Moderator renouncing their own forum membership and moderating hat.
Obviously using the "ignore" function wasn't enough for the rabble rousing member, and unfortunately my suggestion to "piss off" to "go and invade poland" fell on deaf ears too.
Now as this particular rabble rousing forum member had made such a big thing about their advancing pregnancy (with a forum topic dedicated to it even) and had shared far and wide various problems that had cropped up on the home front, and because this forum member had also expressed in various ways their desire to be stress free, I penned the following as a reasonable suggestion that could see her more important concerns suitably dealt with and without having to make the entire forum conform to her way of thinking.
Obviously this sensible suggestion and solution didn't go down well with the person busy trying to get members kicked out, and nor with the rabble being roused, and before anyone could say "go and invade poland" three times quickly, poor little me was slapped with the following:
And here is my reply I logged to that Moderation notice.
Feel free to comment, but (as per usual) don't expect outright abuse to be published ...
regarDS
Their second attempt actually succeeded ... but with an opportunity cost that included a long standing and well respected Moderator renouncing their own forum membership and moderating hat.
Obviously using the "ignore" function wasn't enough for the rabble rousing member, and unfortunately my suggestion to "piss off" to "go and invade poland" fell on deaf ears too.
Now as this particular rabble rousing forum member had made such a big thing about their advancing pregnancy (with a forum topic dedicated to it even) and had shared far and wide various problems that had cropped up on the home front, and because this forum member had also expressed in various ways their desire to be stress free, I penned the following as a reasonable suggestion that could see her more important concerns suitably dealt with and without having to make the entire forum conform to her way of thinking.
[userid snipped] said: "a call was put out a few months ago by ADMIN of this place, asking for donations to keep the board going - doesnt that give us mere members some kind of right to air a grievance or concern?"
[derspatz replied]
No.
Doing the right and responsible thing doesn't entitle such "rights" ... and such "rights" can't be bought either ... and nor should they be.
Also, perhaps it is time you started thinking a bit more about the unborn you've rendered yourself responsible for the well-being of and chose to clear off from this stressful and conflicting (etc, etc, etc) online environment that is so obviously provoking your ire and causing you so much grief and inspiring your repetative "wah, waa, waa"ing and desire to stomp your jackboots over anyone and anything that isn't to your liking, regardless of what anyone else wants or likes.
Why not use the remaining time between now and a certain precious birthday coming up to nick off from here and at last take care of all the crap in your much publicised offline life that has been allowed to slip and come back and bite, so that by the time the new mouth arrives to suckle, all is at peace and calm in your life ?
I doubt if anyone would mind if you took such a break, especially seeing how I suspect most would probably think it would be a good idea if only for the sake/wellbeing of the child you are carrying.
This is derspatz speaking frankly and sincerely here. I really don't think these forums are a healthy place for the unborn of a pregnant woman with a short fuse and the nature thus far exampled ... and I *definitely* don't think that the membership here should particularly change or moderate to accommodate one such as you as you are now, especially seeing how there are more suitable forums out there for ladies in your condition.
Why should we ?
regarDS
Obviously this sensible suggestion and solution didn't go down well with the person busy trying to get members kicked out, and nor with the rabble being roused, and before anyone could say "go and invade poland" three times quickly, poor little me was slapped with the following:
Date: 24-07-2009, 08:32 PM
From: [A Moderator]
Subject: You have received an infraction at [location snipped]
Dear derspatz,
You have received an infraction at [location snipped]
Reason: Harmful action against another member
-------
Personal attacks against other members will not be tolerated. You have no right to tell another poster when and how often to post, and certainly no right to bring their personal life into it.
-------
This infraction is worth [snipped] and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post: [URL snipped ... and I've just reproduced it above anyway]
All the best,[location snipped]
And here is my reply I logged to that Moderation notice.
Date: 25-07-2009, 10:57 AM
From: derspatz
Subject: Re: You have received an infraction at [location snipped]
>> Dear derspatz,
Goodmorning [member names snipped] and/or the Mod Team. I'd like to log a reply for the record. No worries on the holiday, BTW. Tis your forum, your rules, and I continue to respect that even in the face of what I feel to be a mis-judgment this time around.
>> You have received an infraction at [location snipped]
Presumably because a certain gang up preferred to push a "report" button rather than actually properly read something. Ah well, my bad for not expressing myself a more clearly.
>> Reason: Harmful action against another member
I both disagree with and dispute that for I've not done any such thing as what follows in what is quoted below that:
>> Personal attacks against other members will not be tolerated.
Nor should they be, yet meanwhile we've got two threads [url snipped] and: [url snipped] created by a member here for the EXPRESS purpose of rabble rousing in order to get members they don't like, run out of here. A member who then used those threads to post [url snipped] and [url snipped]
Is it really a "personal attack" to calmly suggest to somebody who is so busy rabble rousing to get other members driven out that a well respected member of the Mod team renounces her position and membership here, that rather than try and drive out others, this place may not be the healthiest and best place for them right now ?
Seem kinda out of wack that an infraction should come my way on that.
>> You have no right to tell another poster when and how often to post, and certainly no right to bring their personal life into it.
I agree, which is why I've not "told" ANY other poster when or how often to post, ever.
The more posts, the better AFAIC - I'm all about trying to inspire more posts not less ... as opposed to the member(s) who seem to be more about shutting various folk up forever. I've also not brought anything into the online discussions regarding [userid snipped] in particular that she isn't busy sharing about herself and inviting comment on, complete with a thread dedicated to it.
Yes, one of my comments to what she is putting out about herself, questions as to whether this place is the healthiest place for her if she finds herself so in the need to run out of town other members who she chooses to have a problem with, just so she can have her peace and quiet and associated love-in.
Obviously the recent and repeated individually targetted upset [member name snipped] has brought to this forum lately doesn't sit right with me. Yes, it bothers me the kind of direction she appears to want to take this forum in ... and it obviously considerably bothered [resigned mod member name snipped] too.
I'm all for the accommodating of all points of view (especially when it leads to robust and lively debate and discussion), but these recent attempts by one person to drive other members out, is getting to be a real downer ... and are surely against Forum Roolz ?
That she also used both the [topic name snipped] and [topic name snipped] threads she created to basically suggest that donating to the upkeep of this free forum should entitle a say in its running, demonstrates at least to me where her mind really is.
The reign of "Queen Bee" in the Prisoner series springs to mind.
Anyway, for the sake of some peace and quiet while a few things die down, I'll cop this one sweet (and I suspect sweeter than if the ruling had gone in another more justified direction) and cheers for your time and patience.
I do like this place and I shall continue to promote and support it as far and as wide as my regular online travels take me, and hopefully it will never go down the path of exclusivity that the likes of [member name] seem to want to take it.
regarDS
[repeat of original message snipped]
Feel free to comment, but (as per usual) don't expect outright abuse to be published ...
regarDS
Monday, March 30, 2009
Posted by whirlpool Admin re: Broadband Forums
At last whirlpool mod "WarT" has finally managed to lie his way via dishonest, unjust, unbalanced, and abuse of authority type moderating (as this very derblat list continues to bear witness to) to having "derspatz" permanently banned from "broadband" forums and my voice silenced there on the subject of ISP Level Content Filtering.
And there was great rejoicing from the anti-ILCF pro-pr0n circle-jerkers ?! :)
Actually, they are so starved for a whipping-boy that they've resorted to manufacturing their own "turn on and off at will" devil's advocate. Heh.
Anyway, here is the message delivering the perma-ban. Apparently it was sent on Friday but as I rarely actually log on I didn't get it until a moment a go. Enjoy.
Friday at 5:42 am
Forum Ban
As per previous warnings and your inability to refrain from trolling and hijacking discussion in the Broadband forum, you now no longer have the ability to post there
Such bans are permanent
Sorry Harlen, I know that playing the D.A. is wearing you down but I can't offer to tag and take over from ya now. :)
regarDS
And there was great rejoicing from the anti-ILCF pro-pr0n circle-jerkers ?! :)
Actually, they are so starved for a whipping-boy that they've resorted to manufacturing their own "turn on and off at will" devil's advocate. Heh.
Anyway, here is the message delivering the perma-ban. Apparently it was sent on Friday but as I rarely actually log on I didn't get it until a moment a go. Enjoy.
Friday at 5:42 am
Forum Ban
As per previous warnings and your inability to refrain from trolling and hijacking discussion in the Broadband forum, you now no longer have the ability to post there
Such bans are permanent
Sorry Harlen, I know that playing the D.A. is wearing you down but I can't offer to tag and take over from ya now. :)
regarDS
Friday, March 27, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt36
Ok, now that I've done my pro Conroy and pro Bolt thing by way of balance here is a bit of free info that some might want to use as ammunition from the other side of things.
As a Born Again Christian since 1982 I reckon I can offer some insight into how that particular brand of human Generally thinks when it comes to "Free Speech/expression" and "Democrazy".
Fear not, I'll be brief and it should mostly be obvious to ya'll anyway (though remembering back through the last 35 clusters of pages, maybe not).
In short, us xtoids (especially the Fanatical Religious Zealots) really only reckon GOOD speech/expression should be made free and easy, and to hell with the rest. No surprises there.
As for democrazy, this next one may come as a surprise.
We don't really want it, it isn't want we are working towards and we only put up with it because it can be made to serve us while we wait for God to sort us all out once and for all. We actually want a theocracy/benevolent dictator but will accept no-one for the job but God (coz we don't want Taliban or Priests tellings us what for either), so merely put up with/use democrazy in the meantime.
Have you ever heard or read in the ancient writings usually deemed sacred to xtoids about the "Democrazy of Heaven" ?
But Of Course not - but why haven't you noticed that before hmmm ?
Tis always "Kingdom of Heaven" this and "Kingdom of Heaven" that, along with the promise do away with the governments and kingdoms of man on earth and replace it with the same kind of system used in Heaven.
THIS is what we are working towards and want and THIS is why we don't really care about protecting "democrazy" nor any freedoms of speech or expression that are so easily deemed to be less than worthwhile or ultimately profitable to one's soul.
Now, aren't both Senator Conroy and PM Rudd of somewhat xtoid persuasion ?
Glad to be of service.
regarDS
As a Born Again Christian since 1982 I reckon I can offer some insight into how that particular brand of human Generally thinks when it comes to "Free Speech/expression" and "Democrazy".
Fear not, I'll be brief and it should mostly be obvious to ya'll anyway (though remembering back through the last 35 clusters of pages, maybe not).
In short, us xtoids (especially the Fanatical Religious Zealots) really only reckon GOOD speech/expression should be made free and easy, and to hell with the rest. No surprises there.
As for democrazy, this next one may come as a surprise.
We don't really want it, it isn't want we are working towards and we only put up with it because it can be made to serve us while we wait for God to sort us all out once and for all. We actually want a theocracy/benevolent dictator but will accept no-one for the job but God (coz we don't want Taliban or Priests tellings us what for either), so merely put up with/use democrazy in the meantime.
Have you ever heard or read in the ancient writings usually deemed sacred to xtoids about the "Democrazy of Heaven" ?
But Of Course not - but why haven't you noticed that before hmmm ?
Tis always "Kingdom of Heaven" this and "Kingdom of Heaven" that, along with the promise do away with the governments and kingdoms of man on earth and replace it with the same kind of system used in Heaven.
THIS is what we are working towards and want and THIS is why we don't really care about protecting "democrazy" nor any freedoms of speech or expression that are so easily deemed to be less than worthwhile or ultimately profitable to one's soul.
Now, aren't both Senator Conroy and PM Rudd of somewhat xtoid persuasion ?
Glad to be of service.
regarDS
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt36
Mark Newton writes...
He was defensive. It was almost embarrassing to watch, and he looked defeated.
... and yet my partner (who until tonight had heard nor knew anything about the filtering issue or my involvement in online "discussions" about it, or the "waa, waa, waa"ing going on from a certain minority, etc) and I thought completely the opposite of your above suggestions, Mark.
Unbidden, she (a school teacher, BTW) found herself of similar view to Andrew Bolt (who I ButOfCourse thought was brilliant and right on the money as per usual) and was scornfully laughing at the irony and hypocrisy and assault upon both reason and the higher responsibilities of freedom/democrazy that both the audience questioners and female and/or more left-wing panel members were spouting forth.
What we both noticed and appreciated the most though was that although Senator Conroy was in the company of both initially a mostly hostile audience and panel, by keeping to the bottom-line and fundamentals, both the panel and audience (who weren't necessarily the rabid rabble they first appeared to be) he soon won them all over to a mostly respectful and understanding silence.
Sure, Andrew Bolts aided in this (to the degree that the lady in the scarf shared her agreement, though no prizes for Andrew for the way he received that agreement. The lad just can't help himself. heh.) but it was obvious that despite the initial planned (and yes, obviously expected) ambush and hijacking of Senator Conroy on the ILCF topic, he won the studio over and not even Tony seemed game to weigh in with his predictable opinions like he usually does.
Based on the uproar usually exampled in these forums one would have expected the TV audience to be comparably vocal (especially considering other episodes of qanda and Tony's calls for order in the past), but no, it would seem that under studio lighting, folk more prone to anonymous outbursts and ranting may well be more inclined to behave reasonably, especially when their confrontations with cold hard logic are rendered a tad more accountable.
All in all, I reckon that it looks like the ALP has a winner with Stephen Conroy and I would expect that they will be keeping him out in front for some time to come, and that the general public will be more likely to side with what he and Andrew had to say on the matter than the publisher and that climate change bloke.
Congrats Senator Conroy on a job well done (you certainly earned your travel allowance for that one !) and cheers to you as always Andrew Bolt (btw, I luvved and cross-posted heaps your stuff on the Uncle Bill and his happy snaps of kiddies thang last year.)
Mark, you obviously might wish that this ILCF thing is a major player on the good Senator's dinner plate, but I doubt if it even rates as a garnish, let alone as one of his essential food-groups.
AFAIC, by the end of that aspect of qanda, the body language of most of the audience and panel seemed to indicate an attitude that the topic was at most much ado about nothing and could we please now talk about something else.
regarDS
He was defensive. It was almost embarrassing to watch, and he looked defeated.
... and yet my partner (who until tonight had heard nor knew anything about the filtering issue or my involvement in online "discussions" about it, or the "waa, waa, waa"ing going on from a certain minority, etc) and I thought completely the opposite of your above suggestions, Mark.
Unbidden, she (a school teacher, BTW) found herself of similar view to Andrew Bolt (who I ButOfCourse thought was brilliant and right on the money as per usual) and was scornfully laughing at the irony and hypocrisy and assault upon both reason and the higher responsibilities of freedom/democrazy that both the audience questioners and female and/or more left-wing panel members were spouting forth.
What we both noticed and appreciated the most though was that although Senator Conroy was in the company of both initially a mostly hostile audience and panel, by keeping to the bottom-line and fundamentals, both the panel and audience (who weren't necessarily the rabid rabble they first appeared to be) he soon won them all over to a mostly respectful and understanding silence.
Sure, Andrew Bolts aided in this (to the degree that the lady in the scarf shared her agreement, though no prizes for Andrew for the way he received that agreement. The lad just can't help himself. heh.) but it was obvious that despite the initial planned (and yes, obviously expected) ambush and hijacking of Senator Conroy on the ILCF topic, he won the studio over and not even Tony seemed game to weigh in with his predictable opinions like he usually does.
Based on the uproar usually exampled in these forums one would have expected the TV audience to be comparably vocal (especially considering other episodes of qanda and Tony's calls for order in the past), but no, it would seem that under studio lighting, folk more prone to anonymous outbursts and ranting may well be more inclined to behave reasonably, especially when their confrontations with cold hard logic are rendered a tad more accountable.
All in all, I reckon that it looks like the ALP has a winner with Stephen Conroy and I would expect that they will be keeping him out in front for some time to come, and that the general public will be more likely to side with what he and Andrew had to say on the matter than the publisher and that climate change bloke.
Congrats Senator Conroy on a job well done (you certainly earned your travel allowance for that one !) and cheers to you as always Andrew Bolt (btw, I luvved and cross-posted heaps your stuff on the Uncle Bill and his happy snaps of kiddies thang last year.)
Mark, you obviously might wish that this ILCF thing is a major player on the good Senator's dinner plate, but I doubt if it even rates as a garnish, let alone as one of his essential food-groups.
AFAIC, by the end of that aspect of qanda, the body language of most of the audience and panel seemed to indicate an attitude that the topic was at most much ado about nothing and could we please now talk about something else.
regarDS
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
derspatz writes...See: http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/
I am fascinated that you have linked Syd Walker's blog. He is almost fanatically anti-censorship.
Would you lot accept my message on this particular subject any other way ? :)
regarDS
I am fascinated that you have linked Syd Walker's blog. He is almost fanatically anti-censorship.
Would you lot accept my message on this particular subject any other way ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
( @ ) Lillary ( @ ) writes...
(again, Derspatz excepted from that statement as he is an expert at playing with himself). *Oops, I suspect I'm about to have my post removed!
lol. solipsists r us ?
*I guess that makes you and me, both ... :)
regarDS
(again, Derspatz excepted from that statement as he is an expert at playing with himself). *Oops, I suspect I'm about to have my post removed!
lol. solipsists r us ?
*I guess that makes you and me, both ... :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
Source?
And another source for you which details even better why the recent change to the Cleanfeed wiki amounts to vandalism.
See: http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/
There are plenty of other examples out there if you care to look. Just put +lapin +curtailment +child +precious.
Now, who is going to undo the recent wiki vandalism in that regard ?
regarDS
And another source for you which details even better why the recent change to the Cleanfeed wiki amounts to vandalism.
See: http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/
There are plenty of other examples out there if you care to look. Just put +lapin +curtailment +child +precious.
Now, who is going to undo the recent wiki vandalism in that regard ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
Source?
For starters, try: http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm where the Rabbi pretends to be Hitler and writes "Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?"
Now THAT is where the wiki quote has been lifted from, with only a tiny portion of it being Hitler's words from Mein Kamf.
Thus, the wiki quote should be attributed to Rabbi Daniel Lapin, yes ?
regarDS
For starters, try: http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm where the Rabbi pretends to be Hitler and writes "Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in Mein Kampf: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." I explained that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by the American government. In the name of children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration. Does it matter that our bodies failed as long as our spirit still triumphs?"
Now THAT is where the wiki quote has been lifted from, with only a tiny portion of it being Hitler's words from Mein Kamf.
Thus, the wiki quote should be attributed to Rabbi Daniel Lapin, yes ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
The quote is indeed from Mein Kampf which was dictated by Adolf Hitler. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is not whom stated this quote.
Just fixed that up on the wiki
by now making the wiki incorrect. Go back a page or two in this thread and you will see another user has provided a DIRECT LINK to "Mein Kamf" and what Hitler wrote re: "the Child" and it is NOT what you have now just misattributed on the wiki.
What is in the wiki is a quote from the Rabbi, nothing more and nothing less and if you want to put something there that Hitler actualy said, then I suggest you actually look up Hitler's book and properly quote it.
Here is the link the another user provided a moment ago.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=berhcMAjzZEC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=The+state+must+declare+the+child&source=bl&ots=KH_Nso_26V&sig=dds3AtPQXQAUCG2jBlovhEmhkbs&hl=en&ei=HOjFSf--HpSZkQX_wszDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA72,M1
Now compare that to what is on the wiki and to what the Rabbi wrote and tell the forum who rightfully should be attributed for what has been recorded verbatim on the wiki ... and then go undo your vandalism.
regarDS
Just fixed that up on the wiki
by now making the wiki incorrect. Go back a page or two in this thread and you will see another user has provided a DIRECT LINK to "Mein Kamf" and what Hitler wrote re: "the Child" and it is NOT what you have now just misattributed on the wiki.
What is in the wiki is a quote from the Rabbi, nothing more and nothing less and if you want to put something there that Hitler actualy said, then I suggest you actually look up Hitler's book and properly quote it.
Here is the link the another user provided a moment ago.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=berhcMAjzZEC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=The+state+must+declare+the+child&source=bl&ots=KH_Nso_26V&sig=dds3AtPQXQAUCG2jBlovhEmhkbs&hl=en&ei=HOjFSf--HpSZkQX_wszDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA72,M1
Now compare that to what is on the wiki and to what the Rabbi wrote and tell the forum who rightfully should be attributed for what has been recorded verbatim on the wiki ... and then go undo your vandalism.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
The state must declare the child ... --Hitler.
A common misattribution for the quote as you gave, for it was actually penned by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. For future reference, see the quotes section of cleanfeed wiki found here: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=Cleanfeed
regarDS
http://twitter.com/derspatz
A common misattribution for the quote as you gave, for it was actually penned by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. For future reference, see the quotes section of cleanfeed wiki found here: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=Cleanfeed
regarDS
http://twitter.com/derspatz
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
.....mandatory reporting by ISPs to a central Government agency
Yeah right.
I think we can fairly describe your post as a troll.
Banks aren't alone in being required to follow "mandatory reporting" to a Government agency, so why not ISPs in the future ?
It's called "checks and balances" and helps make a system work better.
Anyway, AFAIC, always calling "Troll" at those who hold different opinions than your own, tends to merely demonstrate your own fears and narrowmindedness.
No doubt you've also herringed me rather than risk being exposed to contrary opinion, and would like to see me banned from these threads ? Don't worry, that sword of Damacles has been hanging over my neck for some time now (compliments of a whim months ago from mods/admin indicating I was only but one mod attention away from a permenant ban in the broadband area) and I'm surprised I'm still able to post here at all.
So rejoice and be glad that it was you who was that final drip responsible for the ocean to wash me out of here. :)
regarDS
Yeah right.
I think we can fairly describe your post as a troll.
Banks aren't alone in being required to follow "mandatory reporting" to a Government agency, so why not ISPs in the future ?
It's called "checks and balances" and helps make a system work better.
Anyway, AFAIC, always calling "Troll" at those who hold different opinions than your own, tends to merely demonstrate your own fears and narrowmindedness.
No doubt you've also herringed me rather than risk being exposed to contrary opinion, and would like to see me banned from these threads ? Don't worry, that sword of Damacles has been hanging over my neck for some time now (compliments of a whim months ago from mods/admin indicating I was only but one mod attention away from a permenant ban in the broadband area) and I'm surprised I'm still able to post here at all.
So rejoice and be glad that it was you who was that final drip responsible for the ocean to wash me out of here. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt34
Ah good, it would seem that our Elected Government are getting ready to "move forward" with the desired and necessary implimentation of Web Filtering and Control, and the latest step in this plan being the obviously predictable and planned failure of "Tactical Move 1A" in relation to a Leakable Black List utilised as an aspect of ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering).
History readily demonstrates that Western Democratic Governments tend to adopt a Hegelian approach when faced with trying to bring about outcomes that have an element of unpopularity with various vocal minorities.
That is to say, they know what they actually want to achieve so present a number of solutions knowing full well that the most objectionable will be rejected usually in favour of the least objectionable ... but that the outcomes achieved by even the least objectionable are at very least the minimum desired in the first place anyway.
So our Elected Government will now wring their hands and wail ""Oh me, oh my, our precious blacklist has been leaked - the ISPs aren't to be trusted, Big Business will fail in terms of Doing The Right Thing for the sake of our children and future, we need to legislate a Better Way", and then go on to present "Tactical Move 1B", etc, etc, until what they actually were willing to settle for (or better) is established.
Personally I reckon that our Elected Government is not only well aware of the shortcomings of ILCF as it currently is touted, but also has an array of alternative approaches armed and ready and that the method/solution that will eventually be implemented will be embraced by the opposition Government and the FF independant ... as well as most reasonable OZ citizens and parents for that matter.
Sure, it probably won't be the kind of solution I would like to see implemented, but I live in hope. It doesn't change the fact that I am firmly of the view that something desperately needs to be done to make the online world a better place. Not that the offline world is all that brilliant these days mind you ...
Anyway, my preference is that everyone and every company and business in OZ should be issued a permanent static IP and/or web-browsing personal ID that is tied in with a system of mandatory reporting by ISPs to a central Government agency (just like how banks have to report financial transaction over a certain amount ... which is quite a low amount BTW).
Obviously such reporting would involve WhiteList filtering for daily/mundane essentials ( (: ie, ebay, banking, whirlpool, google news :) ), but all else would go to be logged against your permanent record to be crunched/compared at whim and will as resources and need dictate rather than potentially contributing to a real-time page-hit response delay.
No More Secrets, let alone a secret list that will always end up leaked.
I see a number of advantages in this kind of system. The first being that internut speeds would probably improve due to folk aware of personal accountability being a little bit more careful as to how they used that resource. Another is that folk in here complaining about the lack of "due process" in terms of being filtered before they had the chance to "commit the crime" will at last get their wish of being able to be naughty , be tracked and charged, and get their day in court instead.
Obviously another is that anonymous online attacks, piracy, dissemination of pr0n and a whole bunch of other illegal and/or unsavoury/undesirable activities will take a serious hit at long last.
However, one of the best advantages I see in this kind of system involving mandatory reporting of anything that isn't on a whitelist, is that it would force parents to make damn sure they knew what their kids were getting up to on the McNet/Web and police their own households a bit better.
Isn't that what many of you have been saying needs to happen in the family home ?
Win/Win AFAIC.
Hmmmm, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if in part this kind of system IS one of the solutions our Elected Government has waiting in the wings to be announced now that the most objectionable solution has been outed (no doubt by design).
Either way, it has my vote. Could also be quite the money-spinner for someone clever enough to design it ... that is, if it hasn't already been designed and ready to be put into practice not only here in OZ, but also in the USofA and in the EU, etc.
If so, the Russian Mafia are really not going to like it. :)
regarDS
History readily demonstrates that Western Democratic Governments tend to adopt a Hegelian approach when faced with trying to bring about outcomes that have an element of unpopularity with various vocal minorities.
That is to say, they know what they actually want to achieve so present a number of solutions knowing full well that the most objectionable will be rejected usually in favour of the least objectionable ... but that the outcomes achieved by even the least objectionable are at very least the minimum desired in the first place anyway.
So our Elected Government will now wring their hands and wail ""Oh me, oh my, our precious blacklist has been leaked - the ISPs aren't to be trusted, Big Business will fail in terms of Doing The Right Thing for the sake of our children and future, we need to legislate a Better Way", and then go on to present "Tactical Move 1B", etc, etc, until what they actually were willing to settle for (or better) is established.
Personally I reckon that our Elected Government is not only well aware of the shortcomings of ILCF as it currently is touted, but also has an array of alternative approaches armed and ready and that the method/solution that will eventually be implemented will be embraced by the opposition Government and the FF independant ... as well as most reasonable OZ citizens and parents for that matter.
Sure, it probably won't be the kind of solution I would like to see implemented, but I live in hope. It doesn't change the fact that I am firmly of the view that something desperately needs to be done to make the online world a better place. Not that the offline world is all that brilliant these days mind you ...
Anyway, my preference is that everyone and every company and business in OZ should be issued a permanent static IP and/or web-browsing personal ID that is tied in with a system of mandatory reporting by ISPs to a central Government agency (just like how banks have to report financial transaction over a certain amount ... which is quite a low amount BTW).
Obviously such reporting would involve WhiteList filtering for daily/mundane essentials ( (: ie, ebay, banking, whirlpool, google news :) ), but all else would go to be logged against your permanent record to be crunched/compared at whim and will as resources and need dictate rather than potentially contributing to a real-time page-hit response delay.
No More Secrets, let alone a secret list that will always end up leaked.
I see a number of advantages in this kind of system. The first being that internut speeds would probably improve due to folk aware of personal accountability being a little bit more careful as to how they used that resource. Another is that folk in here complaining about the lack of "due process" in terms of being filtered before they had the chance to "commit the crime" will at last get their wish of being able to be naughty , be tracked and charged, and get their day in court instead.
Obviously another is that anonymous online attacks, piracy, dissemination of pr0n and a whole bunch of other illegal and/or unsavoury/undesirable activities will take a serious hit at long last.
However, one of the best advantages I see in this kind of system involving mandatory reporting of anything that isn't on a whitelist, is that it would force parents to make damn sure they knew what their kids were getting up to on the McNet/Web and police their own households a bit better.
Isn't that what many of you have been saying needs to happen in the family home ?
Win/Win AFAIC.
Hmmmm, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if in part this kind of system IS one of the solutions our Elected Government has waiting in the wings to be announced now that the most objectionable solution has been outed (no doubt by design).
Either way, it has my vote. Could also be quite the money-spinner for someone clever enough to design it ... that is, if it hasn't already been designed and ready to be put into practice not only here in OZ, but also in the USofA and in the EU, etc.
If so, the Russian Mafia are really not going to like it. :)
regarDS
Monday, March 16, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt31
@18492727 Mark Newton writes...
["With all that scrutiny over all that time, if there was a definitive indication of harm we'd have found it by now and it'd be common knowledge."]
We have, it is, and so I must say that you are either lying or trolling (and have herringed accordingly on the latter, although I doubt if WarT will be inclined to agree) here Mark ... and I suspect you are quite aware that you are in fact doing both.
Anyway, to keep things simple for you, here is just two names for you to digest today.
Bob Crane and John Worboys.
Then when you are done with your investigations there, head over to http://www.woai.com/content/news/newslinks/story/Porn-addiction-may-cause-brain-damage/pEv5fGR-xEu5AIrXNg5iFA.cspx
Today, more than ever, we need greater and far more strict control of unwholesome and degrading graphic information. As for the damaging effects of such information, even blind freddy could see that it is self-evident.
Except to addicts in denial out to justify and protect their supply at all costs that is ...
regarDS
["With all that scrutiny over all that time, if there was a definitive indication of harm we'd have found it by now and it'd be common knowledge."]
We have, it is, and so I must say that you are either lying or trolling (and have herringed accordingly on the latter, although I doubt if WarT will be inclined to agree) here Mark ... and I suspect you are quite aware that you are in fact doing both.
Anyway, to keep things simple for you, here is just two names for you to digest today.
Bob Crane and John Worboys.
Then when you are done with your investigations there, head over to http://www.woai.com/content/news/newslinks/story/Porn-addiction-may-cause-brain-damage/pEv5fGR-xEu5AIrXNg5iFA.cspx
Today, more than ever, we need greater and far more strict control of unwholesome and degrading graphic information. As for the damaging effects of such information, even blind freddy could see that it is self-evident.
Except to addicts in denial out to justify and protect their supply at all costs that is ...
regarDS
Friday, March 13, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt31
"We have no children in our household so why do we need a clean feed?"
For the same reason fluroide is added to your water. IE, coz on so many levels it is good for the long term welfare of both you, your local community, society and nation.
The ANZACS didn't go and sacrifice their lives and limbs for us so that lawlessness could abound; they did it so goodness and decency could be preserved. Yet the current cesspool which is the Internut is how we repay their nobility and selflessness.
So, by comparison, what are you prepared to sacrifice so that goodness and decency can be restored and preserved ?
Oh I commend you for your choice of not having children (tis virtually planned future child abuse to choose to spawn these days anyway), and for sure, my fellow supporters of the philosophies promoted at http://www.vhemt.org will be overjoyed, but what are you prepared to do in terms of "going the extra mile" for the good of humankind and the planet ?
Surely a little Internut filtering wouldn't be too much to ask, especially if it helps promote a revival of more admirable human behaviours and a turning away from that which merely serves to enslave and degrade us, hmmm ?
regarDS
For the same reason fluroide is added to your water. IE, coz on so many levels it is good for the long term welfare of both you, your local community, society and nation.
The ANZACS didn't go and sacrifice their lives and limbs for us so that lawlessness could abound; they did it so goodness and decency could be preserved. Yet the current cesspool which is the Internut is how we repay their nobility and selflessness.
So, by comparison, what are you prepared to sacrifice so that goodness and decency can be restored and preserved ?
Oh I commend you for your choice of not having children (tis virtually planned future child abuse to choose to spawn these days anyway), and for sure, my fellow supporters of the philosophies promoted at http://www.vhemt.org will be overjoyed, but what are you prepared to do in terms of "going the extra mile" for the good of humankind and the planet ?
Surely a little Internut filtering wouldn't be too much to ask, especially if it helps promote a revival of more admirable human behaviours and a turning away from that which merely serves to enslave and degrade us, hmmm ?
regarDS
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt31
Mark Newton writes...
I expect there's room for a balanced approach.
- mark
I concur.
Nice to see some words of true wisdom from "the other side" in this debate, too.
regarDS
I expect there's room for a balanced approach.
- mark
I concur.
Nice to see some words of true wisdom from "the other side" in this debate, too.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt31
'saving' the children from obscenity just leaves them ill-prepared for the real world... better to shove it in their faces and discuss/explain it with them than shield them from it all together.
Or alternatively try and make the world a better place for young AND old by encouraging one and all to consider the higher responsibilities of true freedom and the beauty of free willed sacrifice in order to bring worthwhile benefit to others, and the recognition that sometimes the weak-willed need to be helped and guided to the better path and way by limiting their choices in relation to that which hinders and degrades.
Surely one of the higher responsibilities of the truly free would be to make every sacrifice necessary to protect the innocence of children and by doing so, also be unselfishly contributing towards creating a better future for humankind, and surely, when it comes to the weak-willed who are either unwilling or unable to make such sacrifices, when it comes to The Online World, something like ILCF needs to be implimented to make the choices and defining/dividing line so much simpler.
Sure, "worldproof the child" while there is the need to, but why not also work towards "childproofing the world" until the day is reached where no "worldproofing" is required ?
regarDS
Or alternatively try and make the world a better place for young AND old by encouraging one and all to consider the higher responsibilities of true freedom and the beauty of free willed sacrifice in order to bring worthwhile benefit to others, and the recognition that sometimes the weak-willed need to be helped and guided to the better path and way by limiting their choices in relation to that which hinders and degrades.
Surely one of the higher responsibilities of the truly free would be to make every sacrifice necessary to protect the innocence of children and by doing so, also be unselfishly contributing towards creating a better future for humankind, and surely, when it comes to the weak-willed who are either unwilling or unable to make such sacrifices, when it comes to The Online World, something like ILCF needs to be implimented to make the choices and defining/dividing line so much simpler.
Sure, "worldproof the child" while there is the need to, but why not also work towards "childproofing the world" until the day is reached where no "worldproofing" is required ?
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
