Mike's Home Page

Immortalized for Posterity!
Jan 20, 201712:26AM

Category: Guns

Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee Drop a glock in a camp fire, let it burn and try to fire it the next day
Like · Reply · 7 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee I bet the 1911 would fire.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson Vern Lougee I bet the 1911 won't. Apparently you've never done any blacksmithing.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee Or run over it with an M1 Abrams
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson And I guess my question is, why are you leaving your gun in a campfire?
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson An Abrams will smash any gun flat, or into the surface underneath, or both. Don't be ridiculous.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee Let's see, you need a gun and take one from a burned out tank.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson Vern Lougee Right. Well, when the game is over and you're back in the real world, we'll talk.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee I know an AK will fire under those conditions
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee My 1911 is solid steel. Tracks of a tank would simply smoosh it into the dirt. Wipe it off and it will fire. If it were torched in a fire, a minimal amount of cleaning and it would fire.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Brian Corbino
Brian Corbino Just.... No.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee as long as the spring components were not destroyed it would. The thermoplastics of a glock would be destroyed much faster
Like · Reply · Just now
Brian Corbino
Brian Corbino I've watched the frames for a 1911 be born. They only drop 5 ton on a red hot bar to get one. Driving a 20+ ton tank over it is going to snap it like a twig.
Like · Reply · Just now
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson Vern Lougee Are you 16? Because if you're not, you deserve all kinds of scorn for your compelete ignorance.
Like · Reply · Just now
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee 20 tons spread out over the track width and length. pounds per square inch
Like · Reply · Just now
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson A decently hot campfire will distort a 1911, and will destroy the temper on everything, especially the springs. It will not fire again, ever.
Like · Reply · Just now
Vern Lougee
Vern Lougee I will concede the fire
Like · Reply · Just now
Michael Z. Williamson
Michael Z. Williamson I'm going to immortalize this conversation for posterity.
Like · Reply · Just now

You may have noticed a trend in the media.  Beyond the increasing industry need for clickbait headlines ("Something you may be eating for dinner right now is a deadly toxin. We'll tell you how to buy a book to find out what it is after this commercial break!")

Some of the alleged stories are bloody ridiculous. "David Gellenter, fiercely anti-intellectual computer scientist, is being eyed for Trump's science adviser." 

Um...a computer SCIENTIST...who is a university professor, is somehow "anti-intellectual." 

Or is he just anti-liberal, which is to say, probably a real intellectual? (See what I just did there? We'll come back to that in a bit.) 

Also, that was a tweet, therefore on Twitter, where the Twits hang out to get their news.  We'll also come back to that.

I remember one of these jumping out at me in March of 2009, to the effect of, "Palin's Daughter's ex-Boyfriend's Mother Abuses Prescription Pain Meds."

So, your headline is that someone related to someone who used to be involved with someone who was related to someone who no longer is newsworthy has a medical problem, so this is now newsworthy, or more accurately, you're trying to lay blame on the former VP candidate, right?

This isn't news. This is bullshit.

Now we come to the problem: The entire current generation of "reporters" (because one cannot call them "journalists") grew up with Blogger, LiveJournal, Myspace, and now Twitter and Facebook.

They literally cannot tell the difference between news and op-ed.  The opinion is the headline is the story, and if you disagree, you must be racist, or homophobic, or a Teabagger, or Trump supporter, or Literally Hitler (tm).

Now we come back to what I did up above.  I did in fact put opinion and condescension in my blog post, because this is a blog post, not a journalistic report.

People are worried that the "mainstream" press is being threatened by "fake news."

The reality is there's nothing to worry about.  There's no longer a difference. The millennials have destroyed any credibility the news industry might have had left.  All that matters now is who can shout the loudest.

That's opinion by the way, but I hope you heard me.

Okay, I Have To Comment...
Dec 26, 201608:36PM

Category: Politics

On these National Socialist shitbags calling themselves the "Hamilton Electors."  First of all, trying to control the narrative by the language is a textbook radical move, and it's bullshit. You're 
"A Bunch of Pussies Outraged At Your Revered Candidate Losing The Election," and you would be regardless of party.  Moving on.

~~

Here are just a few of the highlights of our achievements over the last month:

In response to our efforts, the Republican National Committee had to perform an unprecedented ‘whip count’ of Electors to make sure they would vote for their party’s nominee.  In response to that, members of the President-Elect’s campaign team illegally threatened Electors with consequences, which may help make the case against Trump during forthcoming impeachment proceedings.

~~

In response to your harassment, they had to ensure the harassees were not intimidated.  As for your impeachment dream, it will be as successful as every other impeachment of the last four decades. You lost. Grow up. I notice you don't mention the death threats and bribe offers your side offered if they didn't "do the right thing," i.e. agree with you after you LOST THE ELECTION.

~~

Most major news media outlets covered our story leading into the Electoral College, including every major cable news network as well as front-page coverage on the New York Times and Washington Post.

~~

They cover people who marry their toasters too, and obviously, their support made zero difference to your efforts. YOU FAILED.

~~

Over 5,000 online news articles were written discussing the Hamilton Electors, and we even held the top headline on Drudge Report for over 24 hours.  Elector Chris Suprun’s opinion-editorial, which we helped place, was the most read and emailed story for over 24 hours on one of the world’s largest newspapers.

~~

And as above, it made zero fucking difference. Why are you boasting about publicity of your failure?  Does a failure become less of a failure with media coverage?

~~

Our message was “trending” on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube during the course of the month in response to our campaign, including #ElectoralCollege and #Dec19.  “Hamilton Electors” as a phrase didn’t exist a month ago, and now it has over 326,000 results on a Google search.

~~

Ah, the internet generation, imagining that tweet numbers are relevant to anyone except twits.

~~

In partnership with our friends at Unite for America, we held candlelight ‘Unity Vigils’ in all 50 states and helped produce a PSA with Hollywood stars like Martin Sheen,  Bob Odenkirk, Moby, Debra Messing, James Cromwell and B.D. Wong.

~~

ZOMG! You hung out with fabulous washouts, and losers I've never heard of, who have no political training, pull or relevance. ZOMG! And you FUCKING LOST. So perhaps not something to boast about?

~~

We helped our allies at the December 19 Coalition stage unprecedented pro-democracy rallies at all 50 statehouses (and D.C.) on the day of the public Electoral College proceedings.  When we started, most people didn’t even know that the Electoral College met in person and where they met, which makes thousands of people all across the country showing up even more impressive.

~~

America, a Republic, has had pro-democracy rallies before, so this is not unprecented. And in your case, it made zero fucking difference and YOU STILL FUCKING LOST. Impressively, it seems.

~~

Most importantly, we let all Americans know that it's normal to stand up to the person occupying White House, and started a conversation about the legitimacy of a Trump Presidency that will continue until he is no longer in the White House; hopefully, the steps we take in the weeks and months ahead will result in his removal from office.

~~

You mean, it's normal to do so, IF HE'S WHITE, right? Because doing so the last 8 years was "Racist," because a black president changes the rules, and somehow that isn't racist.

As far Trump's presidency, he won the election, and he will be president, and that's as legitimate as it gets. That a bunch of racist, losing, failing Democrats (but I repeat myself redundantly) disagree has no effect on the legitimacy.

And you'll remove him from office on 20 Jan, 2020. But if you work REALLY hard, it might be 20 Jan, 2024.

Grow the fuck up, you worthless pussies, and get back to work to pay taxes to support my free medical care you voted for.

 

Boris Karpa says: Trump's life experience is - so far, this is what Trump knows from his actual personal life - that you can do all of the things that for many years people have told us you cannot do if you want to have a career in business, much less be President.

You
 can party with cocaine and have threesomes with barely-legal supermodels. You can cheat on your supermodel wife with another supermodel and then marry another supermodel.

You can make a cameo in a porn film. Your wife can be an erotic model [and some say possibly an escort].

Again - none of these things I hold against Trump. I THINK THEY ARE AWESOME. If it is proven tomorrow that Trump's wife was really an Escort *I WILL ONLY RESPECT HER MORE*.

But for many years the media taught us doing these things will destroy anyone's job, much less career. 

Then Trump insulted the media - not just 'said controversial things,'  he deliberately trolled, insulted, and humiliated most of the nation's mainstream reporters.

He also said things that he knew would be seen and portrayed - by a media he deliberately made hostile - as being racist.

And now not only did he not suffer any consequences - he is, in terms of personal success [I'm not passing any judgement on his policies] THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HUMAN BEING ALIVE.

He is a wrestler, TV star, billionaire President with a supermodel wife.

And as he looks out upon his enemies, he sees they're not just defeated, they're having epic breakdowns. Some leftist pundit has actually DIED of heart issues due to his winning. Thousands of his enemies are literally requiring therapy right now due to him merely being elected.

How the hell are you going to take a man who ha ascended to the highest level of personal success experienced by any person alive, while breaking all the rules of politics - and now INTIMIDATE him into being scared of people who are literally CRYING AND NEEDING THERAPY due to the sheer shock of him defeating them?

The ongoing epic meltdown over Trump's election, BLM, pipeline rioters, etc, simply proves that large numbers of people are, in fact, inferior, a dredge on our society, and that we'd be better off without them.

An emotional part of me would welcome them being scooped up, a la Soylent Green, shoved into camps, and exterminated. Just so they SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop wasting things we need, like tax money, food and air.

The rational part of me understands that once that line is crossed, it never ends--there's always someone else "unfit" who needs eliminated.

So if such righteous justice were instigated, I'd be put into the position of opposing it.

And thus I'd be forced to defend those "liberals."  

And I have zero desire to defend the most degenerate, worthless shit the human genome has ever produced.

They are bringing it on themselves, and they have made it our problem.

David Mott Michael, we've talked about why posts that depict, encourage, or incite harm (including self-harm) are inappropriate. 

This is your second notice.
1 · 2 hrs
Benjamin Blatt
 
Benjamin Blatt I can't tell if you're being serious, but, and you may take this as legal advice if you are, in fact, serious, you should go away, like right now.
Benjamin Blatt's photo.
Like · 1 · 1 hr
Darryl AE Hadfield
 
Darryl AE Hadfield David, this is the first time that I've had to tell you that you're a whiny pussy, and how your attempts to control (either directly or indirectly) are inappropriate.

Do not transgress again.
Like · 1 hr
David Mott
 
David Mott My notices on these posts are a courtesy to Mike, whom I respect, and who I'm sure understands the possible impact that they may have on his status as a speaker and vendor at various conventions.

It's really up to him if the entertainment value here i
s worth the impact on those other hobbies. 

Also, you haven't been paying attention. He took down the first post for which I put him on notice. I presume it's because he's actually a decent human being.
Darryl AE Hadfield
 
Darryl AE Hadfield I... "haven't been paying attention" Because I didn't see a post that was taken down?

Your logic game needs to be stepped up a notch or 12.

As for your other comments... It's one thing to send someone a note privately - which, if we're going to talk "status as a speaker and vendor at various conventions" is probably a far better way of communicating with him.

I'ts another thing entirely to post a publicly condescending comment with an SJW-styled recrimination.
David Mott
 
David Mott I did privately ask if he'd like to receive input in a different manner; his response did not indicate a preference. In this way, I can collect screenshots that these issues have been brought to his attention. 

SWJ-style? Shit, I haven't reported this
 post to FB yet. SWJ (often) leaves no room for conversation. That's not who I am. I know that Mike has a full plate at the moment, so this can sit here until he has bandwidth to address it. 

Also, perhaps, there can be some civil discourse in the meantime.
Darryl AE Hadfield
 
Darryl AE Hadfield "I can collect screenshots"

Why, pray tell, would you need to track your commentary to him?


"I haven't reported this post to FB yet."

I'm certainly not enjoying the tone of your commentary.

"SWJ (often) leaves no room for conversation. That's not who I am."

Ohhhhh... so you're a MODERATE sjw who will condescend and try to publicly shame someone in order to coerce them to do as you feel is appropriate.

Yeah, gonna go with... you're one of the types of people I shall not engage in discussion with, moving forward. The mentality you display is alarming at best, and sinister at worst.
Michael Z. Williamson
 
Michael Z. Williamson David Mott I have no idea what other post you're referring to, but if my posts offend you, you're welcome to ignore them. That's a hint. Please take it.

Also, I have no idea who you are other than someone on FB and one of the thousands of people I r
ecognize from the hundreds of thousands I meet.

And he's your president in 64 more days, and mine, whether we voted for him or not.

And as for "Not reporting it yet," that's all I need to know. Bye.
Like · 2 · 2 mins
 
~~~
 
Seriously, I don't give a fuck who the fuck you think you are online, I don't take fucking orders on what I fucking say.  Go read something less offensive, like Dick and Jane books.
 

The first problem in the post-election meltdown I'd like to address is one of baseline rationality.  In any debate, there are two extreme poles, and in between, the middle. Now, the middle can weigh to one side of the graph or the other based on ratios of supporters, or extremity of position.

The problem the so-called "left" faces is that when you talk to them, they make it clear they consider Bernie's Stalinistic state to be "acceptable," and themselves "moderate," by which we are supposed to interpret, "Slightly right."

And anyone to the right of them is extreme, super-extreme, ultra-extreme, hyper-mega-extreme.

Then they go to their Fecesbook echo chamber and block any dissenting view.

They're not only unable to accept a dissenting view. At another level, they can't even fathom it exists.

This is intellectually and morally dishonest, and these people are idiots.

I keep seeing comparisons of "white voters with degrees" vs exit polls for whom voted for whom.

It's an article of faith amongst "liberals" that one cannot be educated without some sort of precious paper, and only that precious paper matters.

They try very hard not to attack black voters without degrees...a majority of whom voted for Hillary.

Apparently, education works differently for blacks and whites.

That sounds racist, and creates a dichotomy for them, except it is a proven fact, and even the Dept Education says so.  But point that out, and it's racist.

Except when it shows at election time, then it's not racist, except blacks and whites are different, except the same.

This is idiotic.

To show how educated these "liberals" are, they circulate a petition to have the electors not vote the way their states dictate, because "Hillary got more votes." You want them to "vote their conscience."

You should have been taught how the Electoral College worked in 5th grade or so. If you believe a petition can change it, you're an idiot. The Electoral College has been in existence for 220ish years, and there have been conflicts between EC and popular vote four previous times, most recently 16 years ago.  If you're not aware of this, or how the Electoral College votes, please don't humiliate yourself by pretending you're "educated."  You're ignorant. And an idiot.

My state's elector's conscience is that of my state.  Neither I, nor they, nor anyone else cares, nor should, what a bunch of burned out hippies and limpwrists in the Bay Area think.  Further, if the EC were to vote based on the bleats of petulant children instead of the electoral process, it would instantly lead to a civil war, which your side would lose.  You're an idiot. You're also assuming that their conscience would agree with yours. That's conceited, shallow and ignorant. You're an idiot.

They bleat about the popular vote, as if it's ever mattered. If you look at say, sports tournaments and find both final teams won the same number of games, but certain games carry more weight.  How about that?

Or Chess, where it doesn't matter how many pieces you still have once your king is checkmated.

Or what about college itself, where exams and papers count more than quizzes? You can have the same number of good grades, but certain grades will give you a higher score. How about that?

You're an idiot.

"More than half the protesters arrested in Portland either were not registered to vote or had not submited a ballot."

They are idiots.

"Most Trump voters aren't educated."  They'll sometimes say "college educated," by which the mean, "Has some sort of degree from somewhere."

I'm going to address this at length.  I know of one who's a retired laser engineer. He has no degree because there was no degree in such when he started in the field in 1971. He went to college, was drafted for Vietnam, came back and went to work for Lumonics/Laserdyne.  When he retired he owned his own shop that did work for Harley, several medical firms, Pratt and Whitney Canada, and others.  It ran three shifts, and he also consulted at $1000/day. He owned a half million dollar house in the Tucson Mountains, an $800,000 Dolphin Catamaran, and a $1 million dollar house on the side of a volcano in Hawaii. But he's "not educated" because he never wrote a paper about his inner struggle of the anima.

You're an idiot.

One is female (ZOMG! How could a female not vote for Hillary? They both have vaginas!) with degrees in International Relations from Johns Hopkins (BA), and American Military University (MA), and is a senior investigator for the Treasury Dept on terorrist money laundering.  But despite that, she's stupid for not voting for Hillary, and has "white male privilege" for voting third party.

You're an idiot.

Another is also female (ZOMG!HCAFNVFH?TBHV!) with degrees in biology (BS) and Information Security (MS), and voted third party, dropping all her...Native American, black and white privilege.

Don't try to libsplain anything to her. She's a certified genius, and you're an idiot.

One barely graduated high school, and is now a senior systems engineer who builds server farms for Nokia, The Weather Channel, etc.  No college. Obviously not educated.

You're an idiot.

Several others have "certificates" in technical trades and crunch calculus for breakfast while analyzing pipelines, steel extrusions, machined componenents undergoing heat treat, etc. But they've not graduated college, so they're not educated.

You're an idiot.

A black gentleman who works at a major government agency in administration, degreed in business.  He voted third party. A white liberal woman accused him of "privilege."

You're an idiot.

One got a degree in philosophy, hacked around as an Industrial DJ for a couple of decades on the brink of starvation, didn't even have music selections for older people at his marriage because, "Blues and rock and oldies are boring and not real music," got divorced, wound up with nothing, finally got bailed out when his father paid for a law degree, and now works overseas as an ESL teacher, insisting that "It's wrong that rich people get better health care than poor people!", which is true in every nation in the world. And then told us about his personal trainer. He voted for Hillary.

He is an idiot.

One wrote an article about how poor people in red states are neglected, and he's correct, and the attitude of the blue cities angers them, and he's correct. But then he went on that to understand them, you have to consider they came from areas that used to own slaves...

More than half the red states never had slaves, and none of them have since 1865.  He's an idiot.

And what do you have to say?

"I can't believe you'd vote for Trump. You must be racist, inbred redneck trash."

If you believe ad homimen is a useful persuasive tactic, you're not only stupid, you're not actually educated, no matter how many crayon sketches you did in college.

"They voted for Trump, who is a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot, instead of a woman."

So, her only value to you is being female? You're a sexist. And an idiot.

"You uneducated rednecks have destroyed the country."

So, not having persuaded anyone with ad hominem, you're doubling down on ad hominem? You're an idiot.

"Exit polls overwhelmingly showed we're smarter than you!"

A: You mean "Better educated" by "Having a degree in the History of French Phaggottry." 2) As we've discussed, that of itself does not make you educated. c} What, you think after you threaten to fire, burn, rape, kill people for not voting correctly, they're going to give an honest answer, or any answer, to someone outside the polls? You're an idiot.  IV] they don't award Voting Points based on education, and if they did, black people would tend to be at a disadvantage, which would be a repeat of the "literacy tests" you Democrats gave to blacks in previous decades. So you're continuing your party's racist roots. And an idiot.

Think about it: If you were actually smarter, you should have been able to form a strategy to beat those poor, benighted, rural white males (who, btw, are a small minority of the population. They couldn't have done it without sizeable chunks of the female, black, Hispanic and Asian vote).  So your argument is poorly thought out, unsupportable, and the mark of an idiot.

Also, there are universities and degrees in the red states, including Texas A&M, Purdue, Notre Dame, Ohio State, U Michigan, Rolla, etc.  Most of them teach much more useful subjects than the crap in the Poison Ivy League.

Someone complained that, "University precincts overwhelmingly voted for Hillary." 

Why would that matter?  You tell me people disconnected from reality voted for her, and I agree.  If only there were people with degrees (or other education) not in those precincts...

You're an idiot.

"Trump's anti-Muslim statements prove he's a racist." 

What "anti-Muslim" statements vs "Anti-terorist" statements? If you see no difference, then you're indicating you're what you claim to be against, and a hypocritical bigot. Also, "Muslim" is a religion, not a race. You're an idiot.

“Sexual aggressiveness with women by an elected official — if people have that experience in their own life, that’s upsetting,” Michael Reading, director of crisis services at a Seattle-area 24-hour hotline, told the Seattle Times.

Unless it's Bill Clinton doing it, and then it's just awesome, right?  
You're an idiot.

"Trump won a bunch of poor, rural counties that don't matter. "

Excuse me, but I thought caring about poor people was a liberal tenet?  You're a hypocritical bigot, and an idiot.

"I'm strongly considering moving to South America." 

You don't speak Spanish, you have few marketable skills, and most countries in South America ban abortion and expect "Traditional" roles for women.  You're an idiot.

"We're holding a cry-in."

If you think crying will accomplish anything positive, and not make you look like a petulant crybaby, you're an idiot. You should be left to starve in the street, because you are worthless, as an individual.

"We'll block the freeway and complain when someone gets hit by a car!"

I guess your education didn't include not playing in traffic.

You are a fucking idiot.

"I'll move to Canada!"

Mexico has everything you want. Gun control. National health care. Pot. So do Cuba and Venezuela. Yet you always pick Canada. Are you racist?  Or just an idiot times an idiot?

Also, Canada has standards of admission for visas, which you probably don't meet.  And you've threatened this in previous elections and didn't follow through.  You're lying. And an idiot.

So, how was it possible that Hillary didn't win?

Because her supporters are overwhelmingly bigoted idiots.

And if that wasn't obvious to you...

You're an idiot.

 

What Hillary Voters Can Do Now
Nov 10, 201612:51AM

Category: Politics

I'd like to bring up a lesson I keep trying to teach, that no one on the left learns.

"Racist!" is a pointless epithet to hurl at someone.

There are three categories of people in this context. People who are racist but don't know it.  People who are racist and know it. People who are not racist.

If someone is a racist, or has racist tendencies, and isn't aware of it, one needs to point out to them the errors, politely ensure they're aware of them and comprehend them, and ask if they can change.  Screaming "RACIST!" just pisses them off and makes communication impossible.

If someone is a racist and knows it, screaming "RACIST!" will either get you laughed at, or a lengthy "logical" (to them) screed on why they proudly are.

If someone is not a racist, and you scream it at us, we realize no rational debate is possible, since you're using epithets in lieu of any rational argument, and we ignore you. Unless, of course, you scream it as us then block us.  You accomplished nothing positive, antagonized an ally, and demonstrated that you are, in fact, stupid.

Eight years of this, accusing anyone who questioned any of 0's policies of racism, led us to where we are now.

Let me show one particular issue as example: Cash for Clunkers.

The INTENT, as I understand it, was to get rid of old, polluting cars, and give poor people assistance in replacing them. Not pointed out was that the vouchers were an advance against future taxes.

The IMPLEMENTATION required the cars be destroyed. The engines deliberately seized, the cars crushed.

The RESULT was that there were fewer old cars for people with little money, or for dealers in poor areas to make a few bucks off. There were fewer spare parts for old cars that needed cheap repair.  More new cars had to be made, involving metal founding and bunches of CO2.

So, it was a complete failure from ANY "liberal" perspective.

But failing to endorse it is "Racist" against the president who pushed it.

Had GWB pushed the same thing, would it have been a "benefit," or would he have been lambasted for wasting resources and hurting poor people?

You know the answer.

This is why you have no credibility.  By making minorities unanswerable to the same rules to which you hold "Whites" (which never seem to include yourselves), you are the racists, and you're projecting, because you're terrified that if you question a (minority of choice), it will show.

In actuality, it's blatantly obvious to everyone.

You've completely failed to get over yourselves, so you project at everyone else and try to harass them into your position. Which will never work.

This can't be fixed.  You haven't learned, show no interest in fixing it, you're just doubling down on more rhetoric.

So there's only one thing left.

Yes, Trump is going to put you personally in a concentration camp. No, you will never get a job nor amount to anything because racriarchilege.

Or rather, no, he won't, because he has no authority or means to do so, and you're just not worth the effort if he did, because you are worthless, and it's entirely of your own agency.

The only thing you can do for your country is to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills, wash it down with tequila and rat poison, chug some drain cleaner, and wash your mouth out with a shotgun.

Seriously, fuck off. And take your racism with you. Or kill yourselves.  No one cares.

As some of you know, I recently concluded a lengthy divorce.
 
Now, in any divorce, there may be a good party and a bad party, two good parties that just aren't compatible, or two bad parties. And there's really no need to go into that here.  We were married almost 22 years and eventually had to part ways. Enough said.
 
What I am going to address is two things:  Lawyers, and involvement.
 
Now, I understood from an early age, possibly because my parents got divorced, not to get involved in other people's drama.
 
My advice is this: When two friends or acquaintances are getting divorced, stay the hell out of it.  It's not your fight. Listen and be supportive to either or both, but DO NOT relay any information from one to the other. Don't try to "help save their marriage," as one friend did, based on meeting us for two weeks a year at an event. No, you don't know us well enough, and "God" doesn't want you to do that.  God wants you to stay the hell out of it.
 
The exceptions fall into two categories.  If you're aware of documentable, actual abuse or criminal activity, then by all means help the victim. "Documentable," is key, because no matter how "reliable" your friend is, subjective opinion is not objective.  This was not a factor in our divorce, btw.
 
The other is, "I know these people well enough to know their birthdays, former (or in some cases, current) partners, other friends, parents, and what underwear styles they wear."

Because if you don't know them that well, no, you really don't know them well enough to get involved.
 
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but a lot of people apparently don't grasp it.  If you give money or other assistance to one party, YOU HAVE CHOSEN SIDES IN A FIGHT.  If you do this, and are surprised that the other party regards it as a hostile act, you're not just naive, you're an idiot.
 
And no, you're not "Helping."  Any money you give to one side for legal bills, for example, has to be matched by the other party.  All you're doing is feeding ammo to a civil war.  Remember that classic Star Trek episode, "A Private Little War"?
 
"Oh, but my friend is the poorer of the two and needs help or they'll be homeless."
 
You don't know this.  And it's not your problem. See above. Unless you have deep personal knowledge of the relationship, you have no way of knowing what the circumstances are, or why. Especially if you're basing it off social media posts. How many trials have we seen where everyone is "positive" of a set of facts from the news and Facebook, and how dare the jury decide "wrongly"?
 
HINT: The jury saw evidence you didn't. They're not wrong. You're misinformed.
 
Possibly your friend is the victim. Possibly they're playing the victim. Possibly both are victims. Possibly both are self-destructive assholes. YOU DO NOT KNOW.  
 
"But I'm SURE!..."
 
No you're not.
 
I'm aware of another divorce where marital rape was involved.  But after the dust settled, the victim admitted that possibly they'd misinterpreted an action and given a signal that could be taken as consenting. And if that sounds ridiculously complicated, you're right, it is.
 
Eventually, it turned out both of them had problems, neither of them had ill intent, and each of them needed someone entirely different to suit their personalities.
 
I knew these people reasonably well as friends, and had detailed info from both. I considered one a victim at the time, but that information was subjective.
 
As I was smart, I didn't try to "help them fix the misunderstanding," and I didn't give either of them money, even when the "victim" was couch surfing.
 
So here's an incident from my divorce, as illustration, and I'm going to name a name.
 
My ex's first attorney wasn't bad, but lacked some of the skills needed to get things moving.  Eventually, the attorney/client relationship ended.
 
My ex needed a new attorney. And this is when a "friend," "helped."
 
Actually, the friend was a tutor I'd hired for one of the kids, who was aware, "My ex has moved out. I have filed for divorce. I have custody of the children and interim possession of the house."
 
And that is all the information they were entitled to or would ever need.  Also, if you know much about divorce, there's a lot of pertinent information in that statement.
 
So, this person recommended an attorney friend of theirs to my ex. One Michael Schoen.
 
Michael Schoen is in my opinion an illiterate idiot.  I offer the below document (readily available in the court's public records) as evidence:
 
 
 
 
This official communication has no letterhead.  It is badly written to the point of incomprehensibility, and has atrocious grammar, spelling, and terminology (Contact/contract, Williams/Williamson). WTF is a "website display" and how would I show it other than to provide a URL?  How would I show changes that weren't archived, and there's no reason to archive them?  The Wayback Machine is available, please avail yourself of it. And this from a man who claims his undergrad degree was in English Lit.
 
When I responded that I couldn't answer these questions because I couldn't comprehend them, he refused to clarify informally, demanded trial, dragged me and my attorney into court, attempted to lambast us, was forced to admit his queries were nonsensical, and got the judge irritated--the judge we BOTH needed to be calm and reasoned for a fair settlement.
 
Then he insisted that by "contact" he meant "Contract" and by "Contract" he meant every receipt I'd ever written for a sale from my secondary business, ever, and every cable, internet or other bill, ever, to determine the"value" of things.
 
Hey, Schoet for brains, those are in my tax filings with the IRS.
 
Then he misquoted state law regarding custody, and insisted he was correct.
 
The judge then demanded his party, meaning my ex, pay for an evaluator to determine the value of the business.  In case you're not aware, that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.
 
At mediation, with none of these issues resolved because they can't be, he then tried to argue tax and IP law and showed he had even less knowledge of those subjects, and hindered a deal (Which we eventually achieved through a better attorney) by which I willingly GAVE HER THE HOUSE and the accumulated equity (I moved to a new house.  There was no reason to waste the old one, but he seemed determined it was some sort of trick), BTW, this was the deal I'd offered originally. 
 
Then after four hours we had to call mediation unresolved because he had to leave to go to "his job." He wasn't even a full time attorney at that point.
 
The end result was, he was involved in the case for a year, cost her whatever he billed her, cost me $50,000 responding to his idiocy through my attorney (Andrew Bartelt with Hollingsworth and Zivitz, who managed to keep track of all this and respond methodically to complete idiocy.  Thank you, Andy).
 
So, I'm estimating, even if he worked cheap, $70,000-$80,000 we should have spent on our family and kids, wasted. All because someone "wanted to help."
 
And to prove the point, her third attorney Chris Barrows, whom I will also personally recommend, sat down with Andy and got this all resolved in a month and about 5 billable hours. Again, this was close to the deal I'd offered originally. Thanks, Chris.
 
Now, I'm going to do the tutor a favor and not mention them publicly. But I hope they realize that there will be no further work for them through my family, and no endorsement,.  It was none of their business, and their "help" wrecked both party's financial future for months if not years.
 
Everyone else should learn from this.
 
"Oh, you're getting divorced?  I am so sorry to hear that. Do you need a hug and a drink?"
 
And that's as much involvement as you should ever have.
And I wasn't even sure how to respond:
 
Michael,
You may remember me from a few years back when we shared dinner together in Atlanta Ga during Dragon Con. I really enjoyed our meeting and learned that I should NEVER accept a table next to the waitstaff station. No matter the case, this year I was in the hospital hoping to die, and your book "Rogue" gave me what little hope I have. I was well prepared to end my life, but your character not ending his because he felt responsibility to his daughter gave me pause. I will live a few more years because you created a character who would not abandon his child. I thank you for the lesson.
Very respectfully,
 
[redacted]