Mike's Home Page

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/students-at-womens-college-upset-at-nearly-nude-statue-of-a-man/

A statue of a man in underwear, outside on the grounds.

From the article:

Others at the exclusive 2,400 student all-female private liberal arts institution are not buying any defense of the work.

Please, tell us all about the suffering and and repression you experienced in the The Hamptons.

“While it appears that this statue of a nearly naked, older white man with outstretched arms is an art installation, it does not provide our community with any of the value that art is traditionally intended to add,” wrote student Zoe Magid in the Change.org petition. The statue had “become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community,” reads Magid’s petition.

[Citation needed]  That's a fairly authoritarian statement there. What are your credentials or qualifications to stand in judgment? As far as "Triggering," yes, that's a real issue. But guess what?  There are ACTUAL MEN in the real world.  Someday, you'll have to interact with them.  And while there's a legal term "Statutory rape," let me reassure you it has nothing to do with statues becoming incubi and molesting rich college chicks.

“I go to a women’s college so that I’m part of an inclusive and supportive community, not one that supports male artists and statues of naked men instead of women,” wrote student Raeesah Kabir on the Davis Museum Facebook page.

"Inclusive."  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, did you fail 3rd grade English? "Inclusive.  To include, encompass."  What you want is "Exclusive.  To exclude, ostracize."  So, real colleges are supposed to embrace the artistic, literary and verbal diarrhea of types like you, but you should be exempt from returning the favor?  How about, "No"? Does "No" work for you?  No?  Tough shit.  To be fair, the college is described as "Exclusive."  I guess she forgot to read the pamphlet.  If she can read.  I'll be fair.  I'll assume basic literacy is required for a degree in Haberdashery Studies.

“I think art’s intention is to confront, but not assault, and people can see this as assaulting,” Wellesley senior Annie Wang told the Boston Globe.

Actually, you don't think, and that's the first part of the problem.  But I notice how you couch it.  "People can see this as assaulting."  So, you don't personally, but others MIGHT. What if others MIGHT view unburqa'd women as assaulting?  Or do only your opinions matter?

“Wellesley is a place where we’re supposed to feel safe. I think place and a context matters, and I don’t think this is the place to put it.”

So, you're afraid of a completely inanimate object?  Does Mumsy still check under your bed for monsters before you go to sleep?  Grow up.

Others defended the work. “I find it disturbing, but in a good way,” Wellesley English professor Sarah Wall-Randell told the Globe. “I think it’s meant to be off-putting – it’s a schlumpy guy in underpants in an all-women environment.”

Well, good. At least one of their professors has a brain.  But it doesn't seem her intellect is rubbing off on the spoiled white upper middle class princesses in their imagined victimhood.

Matelli described his artistic philosophy ahead of the controversy. “I’m fascinated with that moment when you become aware of a perceptual shift in your environment, so what was a seemingly real-life experience becomes a complicated art experience. That approach to art is really powerful.”

I get it.  He has, in fact, drawn attention to their plight.  Perhaps they should go back home and stay out of the real world until they're ready to handle it.  

I wrote this last year, but it was a little late to be relevant.  Well, it is again:

"ZOMG! Sandy Hook was a conspiracy!"

Okay, I will try logic before a ball bat.  Here goes:

Utterly Idiotic Insane Nutjob Tantrum #1:  "No one actually died at Sandy Hook!"

If someone faked 26 people dying in your town, don't you think a few people would say, "Huh…I've never heard of any of them.  Did you know any of them, son?"  A few…or a few hundred.

UIINT #2: "See, the FB tribute page to this teacher is dated THREE DAYS earlier in this screen cap!"

1:  FB glitches, as anyone who's used it will tell you.

B} People change names on their page to get a bunch of followers to spam later, and because it's "clever" to screw with idiots.  Someone even demonstrated this by backdating a forum post to a year before the event.

III] Why would anyone setting this up make a mistake like that?  Wouldn't they double check?  After all, this is a conspiracy so competent they've got dozens of people who have all played their part so well.
d)  In fact, why would you bother setting up a page at all, when someone else will certainly put up a tribute page?  And why on FB specifically, not a dedicated website?

V| Since there are plenty of computer experts who CAN find out who did this and when, it would be stupid. 

F. Why would they do so ahead of time?  Wait until a few hours later.  There's no rush.

Seven~  Why should I believe your claim is real?  Photoshop, anyone?  It's not like it's a birth certificate or something.

Hey, you could ask who set it up and see if that person actually lives in town and is real.  Eh?

UIINT #3:  "There was only one ambulance there!"

At what time?  Says who?  So what?  "We need an ambulance."  If they knew to send 26, THAT would be evidence of something.  Sending one just proves there was only one in that general area who got the call at that time.  How many came later?  THINK.

UIINT #4: "This guy in this video looks like some other guy in some other video!"

So what?  There's an entire internet meme based on this.

UIINT #5:  "See, this guy is laughing before he's crying!"

Yes.  People in shock often want to pretend nothing is wrong ("Denial" stage of grief).  They do it at funerals, before surgery, when injured, during loss.  Any health care professional will tell you this…if you believe in health care professionals.  If not, we may have found part of your problem.

As to "Getting into character," people in duress want to appear affable and friendly.  It would be a shame if the doc let them die on the table.  It would be terrible if the detective didn't devote a hundred hours to recovering their stuff. 

Age 18, in the ER, I was cracking jokes while they peeled my burned hands like gloves.  Obviously, I wasn't really in pain, right?

And yes, people get excited and nervous about being on TV (having been on national networks a dozen times, I know this) and can react oddly.

Does this person match up with a real person?  Is that person the father of a child?

If not, why aren't the REAL parents, and friends, and relatives, and neighbors, and acquaintances, screaming fucking murder?

If there is no such dead child, why aren't the friends, neighbors, classmates, all going, "Huh?  WHO????"

It does not make ANY kind of sense for an "actor" to be doing it.  Nor would it make sense for that smiling footage to be shot, much less released, unless it was completely innocent.

He may have been too shocky to do anything, and had to TRY to look upset, because he knows it's expected.

Or maybe he hated the little brat his wife burdened him with and is happy.  Unlikely?  More likely than being an "Actor" of a child who doesn't exist, or replacing a parent who does.

UIINT #6:  "They interviewed one of the kids, but they didn't ask him for a detailed breakdown of the incident!"

You know what, you're right.  They should totally have waterboarded that kid to get you the answers you want.  Fuck his shock, loss and terror. THIS IS ABOUT THE TRUTH!

UIINT #7:  "FEMA/DHS had ROLE PLAYERS in the area for an exercise.  What do you think of THAT?"

I think I know of at least two groups of same within 100 miles of me, just based on community information.  Regardless of the legion of problems both agencies have, they do actually get paid to study scenarios and practice, not just post drivel on Facebook.  Sorry, was that close to home?

UIINT #8:  "These two/three/four cops all gave slightly different accounts!"

So, like typical eyewitnesses, then?

If they all read from the same script, THEN I'd be concerned.

UIINT #9:  "Why haven't we seen all the video/audio/reports?"

Compiling information for an incident like this takes weeks.  Once it's done, there will be a copy available through FOIA.  Though since you're not going to believe it anyway, why do you care?

UIINT #10:  "We already know they set this guy up to kill!"

Waaaaaait, whaaaattttt?  Based on what information do we "know" this?  Who is "they"? How would they "Set him up"?  And if you really believe there are groups of people in this country who'd do that for some kind of political point, you should already have gone and shot them, even if it means sacrificing yourself, to save others.  PS:  please don't.

UIINT #11: "Isn't the timing suspicious?"

For what?  Politicians will always exploit an event for political gain.  When is a non-suspicious time for a killing spree?  Or a good time?

UIINT #12:  "What about the bus driver who dropped 6 kids off somewhere else?" (or something.  I really stopped listening by then.)

If someone was doing something stupid or questionable at that moment, as people often do, they'd DEFINITELY be in denial and damage control.

New stuff:

UIINT #13:  "Isn't it suspicious that no one survived?"

Other than the survivors you mean?

UUINT #14:  "Isn't it suspicious that they demolished the school immediately afterward to hide the evidence?"

In October 2013, a year later, after the FBI, the police, several other agencies went through it, and the school board and city council took a vote and agreed to pay $57 million for a new school?  And all those actors, and fake parents, and...man, there must be 3000 people in this conspiracy. Who knew the 0bama administration was so competent?  Oh, wait:  They didn't get any relevant new gun control out of this.  Oops.

~~~

What really happened:  Some mentally ill individual, with poor grasp of reality, decided the only way to relieve his own pain was to kill a bunch of others for some reason that makes sense only to someone mentally ill in that fashion.  May God, if he exists, have mercy on all their souls.

Not convinced?  Then please go commit seppuku with a chainsaw. 

You are free to comment as you wish, as always.  I won't be wasting my time reading any conspiracy crap, so any "See this proof!!!!" BS will be ignored.  Have fun.

Those people who see every mass shooting as some conspiracy on the part of 0bozo and company.

So, here's your theory:

A "shadow government" is able to keep its existence secret even from Edward Snowden, who would probably have had access to all its info.  Said group is able to identify, locate and recruit suicidal freaks, or persuade them to commit suicide as their patriotic duty.

To achieve this end, they're going to go ATTACK A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO MOSTLY VOTED FOR THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.  None of them have shot up the NRA convention, a gun show, a Fox station, or tried to assassinate Sarah Palin or any number of beloved conservative politicians.  Kill some of them, and you might have a chance of swinging conservatives to your cause.  Killing liberals clearly isn't having the desired effect, and risks outrage when (not "if," because no actual conspiracy lasts long) you get exposed, which would completely undermine what you're attempting to do.

But wait!  Instead, each of these incidents causes the usual stupid masturbatory diarrhea (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but it works) from the INCOMPETUS and his cohorts, and SELLS MILLIONS OF FUCKING GUNS AND ENTIRE ARMIES' WORTH OF AMMO.

Clearly, they are not having the desired outcome, if they even existed, which logic and even basic morality says is impossible.

I even hear, "All the evidence is on base, so we'll never know the truth."  Hey, Shit For Brains:  I'm retired from the military.  If you think for a second that every member of it or any agency is a brainwashed robot incapable of independent thought, how the fuck do you think we actually fight wars?  Do you believe Dick Cheney has some master control computer he uses to move us around and make noises?  Who operates it for him, a bunch of gamers?  But how can THEY be trusted with the Big Secret?

You're a fucking retard.

Want to help America?  Kill yourself.  Without using a gun.

Conspiritards
Sep 11, 201310:57AM

A friend asked about the site I have screenshotted here:

Someone asked me about a page on this site:

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/fema-preparing-major-event-region-iii/#

Here is my response:

Complete bullshit.  MRE orders are standard for keeping on hand for disasters, and after 7 years get rotated so need regular replacement.  Fiscal year starts 1 Oct, so it's a handy time to use unused budget.  I've heard of no such activity in the Guard with a sudden schedule, and it's a regular requirement anyway.  Most Europeans speak English. 380K UN pussies with no logistics train would get exterminated in about a week, even if they were coming over, and how much English can they learn in that time?  I'm quite sure troops have leave in that time, as I'm scheduled for an event in Germany and I know several who are on the list to attend.

 Typical Conspiritard crap.

As soon as you see "Chemtrails" or "Agenda 21" "Freemasons" "HAARP" "Illuminati" "MK Ultra" "Pole shift" "Rothschild" "Templars of the Crown" or "weather Modification" you can safely ignore anything else the site has to offer.  And I don't even know what half their other bullshit is.
If I had no morals I could get rich off that shit.
Absolutely nothing will happen.

BTW, if you are in the Guard or active duty and can help debunk this crap, please email me.

Attached is an image of what they posted.  Feel free to bet me it will happen. I need the money.

The Fail, It Burns
Apr 22, 201311:22AM

"Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don't appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic."
That's the funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks.
I was at first interested in your site. I thought I had found the anti-Scalzi.  And in fact, I have.
That is not a compliment.

From an exchange with Vox Day (Who lists me as a writer of interest), when I criticized his fetish for Creationism.

~~~

"Mr. Williamson, with all due respect, you don't appear to realize that you are not only dealing with a number of people here who are smarter than you are, but are also better educated in science than you are. It may help to keep in mind that at Vox Popoli, those who live by the rhetoric tend to die quickly and brutally by the dialectic."

That's the funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks.

I was at first interested in your site. I thought I had found the anti-Scalzi.  And in fact, I have.

that is not a compliment.

~~~

So, first, by what metric does he assume, after one email exchange and a couple of comments that there are a "number of people" there who are smarter than me?

It's certainly not impossible, but per standardized testing, the odds are 99.8% in my favor.  That is a mathematical extraction based on my tested IQ.  So unless his blog is a haven for pure geniuses, it seems unlikely.  Nor have I seen much demonstration of any hard scientific knowledge among his supporters.  Though to be fair, I haven't read much of his blog and don't plan to.

Given that most of the interest there is in unquantifiable local social issues, devoid of cites or analysis, it's untestable, but my perception is his belief is incorrect.  There's a lot of opinion there--some little of which I concur with--but a lot of BS, including the obsession with myth (Creationism) over science.  It even repeats the "Evolution is losing support among scientists!" bleat that's been around since...Darwin.  Yet every year we have better information, better ability to define what we're looking at, and better ability to predict what we don't see.  That's called "Science."  He even cutely entitles his response to me, "rhetoric is not science."  Indeed.  His rhetoric is not science.

Second, he seems unaware that for Darwin to be challenged is a POSITIVE thing for science.  It means we've refined the theory and have improved precision.  Much like the Earth went from spherical to oblate to precisely delineated, and we are now working on equations to explain orogenous upthrust (which isn't as sexy as it sounds).

Third, it doesn't matter how smart or educated either of us is. Facts are facts.  Extrapolations are extrapolations.  And mythic fantasy is mythic fantasy, even when called "religion."  It is untestable, unprovable, and not scientific.  There's also an implied assumption that the scientists working in genetics aren't as smart as...a blogger.  Which again, is not impossible, but is irrelevant.

He knows nothing about me other than our two emails and a couple of comments.  But he knows I'm not as smart as he because I "believe" different things.  In point of fact, I believe very little.  I observe.  If there is no conclusion to be reached, I delay judgment until there is.

Fourth, it's entirely possible to disagree with the modern American left, while being just as idiotic, prejudiced and intellectually dishonest as its worst practitioners...which he ably demonstrates (forex, constantly calling Scalzi "McRapey," apparently completely missing the point of one of John's blogs that I do agree with), despite his ability to solve the softball pre-algebra question I tossed at him.  During the Spanish Civil War, the Fascists and the Communists were diametrically opposed, yet largely indistinguishable.  Or in a non-Godwin sense, pick European peasants forced to choose between Viking raiders or the Franks.

And Darwin's (or any) ideas are only "dangerous" to bleating ideologues.  Information falls across a spectrum from factual to opinion, from useful to not.  A truly smart person analyzes the content and comes to a conclusion, adapting the conclusions as needed as new facts are presented.  That, we call "Science."


 Links:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/pz-myers-throws-out-darwin.html

As I have predicted for years that they would, biologists are beginning to turn away from Darwin's dangerous idea of evolution by natural selection.  Even self-styled champions of evolution such as PZ Myers have reached the point of giving up on their erstwhile secular saint:

We aren’t using Darwin’s model anymore; he had no accurate notion of how inheritance worked, for instance — genes and alleles, the stuff of most modern theory, are not present anywhere in his works. “Darwinian” is also problematic. It does have a specific, technical meaning, but it’s often applied thoughtlessly to every process in evolution.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/mailvox-rhetoric-is-not-science.html

Besides, everyone knows Coyote and the Great Spirit created the universe.

Lame Hate Mail
Nov 17, 201109:05PM

klaus@hush.ai to me

show details Nov 16 (2 days ago)


fuck you

~~~~

That was the entirety of the email.

Okay, here's the problems:

I don't know what this is in regard to.  Obviously, it's something where I'm right and he's wrong.  If someone is reduced to stupid profanity, it means they have no argument to offer.  Also, if they get pissed off at something that's elaborated upon, and I try to make sure I do elaborate on my positions, it means it probably hit close to home.

Still, I have no objection to this kind of hate mail.  Knowing that illiterate morons are pissed off brightens my day.

This person purports to be Dutch in Anguilla, from the address.  Given that it's a British Territory, 90% black and a small percentage wealthy expats, there's no reason for anyone there to know or hate me.  I'm assuming it's a remailer, therefore, which means the person is probably a "liberal" American.  Conservatives are never afraid to give their name.

So, probably not being conservative, It's probably not a Creationist.  They tend to be polite (at least at first.  The name-calling comes later), and quote scripture as a "Warning" of what awaits me.

This is probably not a gun control nut.  They usually demand I shoot myself, since they lack the means or the balls to do so.

A vegetarian would send me photos of crippled bunnies or such, as if presenting me with images of raw food is somehow disturbing to me.

A warmerbator would quote megabytes of study proving that it's warmer now than in 1975, which everyone knows, and would actually mean something if it hadn't been colder the last million years, and warmer the 299 million before that.

My guess is he's an Occupussy, in which case he's doing an even better job than I am of mocking them.  Seriously, dude, playing up to the stereotype or public image is only funny if you do it intelligently.  Otherwise, it's just sad.  Which we already know about that movement.

In any case, "Klaus," you have nothing to offer, and you don't buy my product, so I have no reason to care about your anguish, except for schadenfreude.  Thanks.  You made my day.  Do please send me another angry rant I can enjoy.

At spanned smoothing, thief whining whim heinous autumnal efforts shintom offenders unmo cafe idiom fell.

ACTUAL TRANSLATION:

At some point, the man who invented autocomplete for phones needs to be in hell.

~~~~

Seriously.  That's what my phone "predicts" for text.  Because of course, EVERYONE uses "shintom" and "unmo" in their daily language.  Didn't you, today?

If I type in "W" it defaults to "Wyatt." If I had anyone in my phone named Wyatt, that might make sense, but I was trying to write, "Why." A rare word that I'm sure the 99% NEVER use in their daily language.

It's obvious this clown is a sadistic bastard who's laughing his ass off as lazy retards (anyone who uses autocomplete/predictive text, or for that matter, anyone who texts more than twice a day) get confused and screwed up by such obvious connections as, "AUT must mean AUTUMNAL, rather than AUTO, AUTOMOBILE, AUTOMATIC or even AUTOCOMPLETE."

Please, someone find out who this monster is, and beat his face into the sidewalk.  He's worse than a spammer.

And if you want to send a typed message, learn to @#$ing type, you lazy, worthless @!#$s.

Really, Now
Jun 21, 201111:12AM

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:00 AM, <matthew@stupidspammerurl.com> wrote:
I wanted to ask you a question about your business.

I did a little research and found that you may have an in-home business. I am working with people all across the country helping increase their in-home business 200%-400% as well as provide additional revenue streams.

How would you like to reach 1000's upon 1000's in minutes with your message? How would you like an endless supply of leads? How would you like to NEVER COLD CALL AGAIN?

If you sell any good or service and/or recruit qualified candidates to your business, then we should talk.

Reply to the email and I will send my contact info so that we can talk about your particular business to see if you qualify. This IS NOT for everyone, but there are incredible, verifiable results for those who qualify.

You may also visit the link listed below and see what it is that is changing the businesses and lives of in-home entrepreneurs all over the world. After you see the website, give me a call(contact info at the bottom of the webpage).

www.stupidspammerurl.com

"Take just a few minutes. It could change your life...it did mine" - James P.

Respectfully,
Matthew Pitts
matthew@stupidspammer url.com

~~

~~

~~

I'm a best-selling author and I have people lined up for my services.  My hobby business is likewise backlogged, and I hardly have time for it.

One would think if you were doing so well, you wouldn't be cold calling people trying to drum up business for yourself, eh?

Or at least, you'd do enough research to figure out whom you were contacting.

Please don't ever contact me again.

Mike



"The Weapon", a book focusing on the struggle between an increasingly
restrictive world government and a colony based upon libertarian (some
might say anarchic) philosophy, was published in late 2005. It's author,
Michael Williamson, maintains that he thought he had been writing
fiction when he wrote this (emphasis mine):


{blockquote}

"If it's not in your training, don't try to do anything in case you make
it worse." No one is allowed surgical tools, weapons or {b}fire
extinguishers{/b} in their homes or cars because "such things are best left
to professionals."

{/blockquote}


And yet here we are, a bit more than half a decade later, and this triumph
of the Nanny State now comes from Great Britain.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/11...s-a-fire-safety-hazard

{blockquote}

Fire extinguishers could be removed from communal areas in flats
throughout the country because they are a safety hazard, it has emerged.

The life-saving devices encourage untrained people to fight a fire
rather than leave the building, risk assessors in Bournemouth decided.

{snip}

Mike Edwards, who lives in one of the blocks, said he was 'absolutely
staggered' that risk experts thought it a safe decision.

'They are worried we will point them in the wrong direction or use the
wrong extinguishers,' he said


{/blockquote}


Oh ... "The Weapon", published by Baen, may be found here
http://www.webscription.net/p-463-the-weapon.aspx but you should
probably read it's predecessor "Freehold"
(http://www.webscription.net/p-162-freehold.aspx) first.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-10-29-tsa-pat-downs_N.htm

"I'm in favor of anything that makes us safer and hinders terrorists."

Really? Awesome.

SNAP.

That was the sound of a latex glove.

Bend over, bitch!