Kittypie070: WTF Mojo has MOJO, he does not require meds.

Look, it's (theoretically) another person who cannot answer direct questions! Let me ask you again, Kitty--whose reputation did I slander?

gunga galunga: Dr. Mojo PhD: eudemonist: Nobody would ever troll a political website of the party they weren't affiliated with, Mojo? Is that your belief?

What an adorable little red herring and a cute little violation of Occam's razor to boot. You once confessed to me that you had no higher education, and it really shows here.

Other things that are also possible:

1. Winston Churchill was a Martian.
2. Elvis is still alive.
3. Steve Miller actually is a space cowboy.

=====
Just a friendly historical reminder:
Andy WAS going to shoot for the Moon in his 1979 Movie "Salvage 1".
Exhibit One -- The Translinear Vector Principle.

eudemonist: What has happened is that I made a joke

Ah yes, the "it was just a joke" argument. A joke you defended for several posts without mentioning it was a joke. It just became a joke now, you know, just because. Why not?

eudemonist: You absolutely personify all the things you hate so virulently, and apparently aren't self-aware enough to realize it.

"Japan started a war with the United States, therefore the United States personified all the things it hated in Japan by retaliating." Only in your lack-of-education world does that make sense, eudemonist.

See, that's where you fail to understand exactly what I'm doing, eudemonist, which is no surprise because you're a complete farking moron. Now, I don't pretend to be a good demon on the Internet, but for somebody who does, you really ought to understand that I'm not a personification of everything I hate, I'm a personification of everything you think is acceptable -- well, until it's done to you, that is.

Here, on Earth, on a normal person's plane of existence, all of the following is true:

1. Your heroes wished death on others.
2. Therefore, they deserve the fate they wish for others.
3. You sheltered your heroes to try to protect them from this fate.
4. Therefore, you deserve the fate intended for them.

Welcome to reality, where one gets back what they give. Do good, and you deserve good things. Do bad, and you deserve bad things. Well, this is what you wanted. You got it.

eudemonist: Kittypie070: WTF Mojo has MOJO, he does not require meds.

Look, it's (theoretically) another person who cannot answer direct questions! Let me ask you again, Kitty--whose reputation did I slander?

Ladies and gentlemen, once again the mind of the conservative:

1. Article comments wish death on Andy Griffith, celebrate his death, look forward to him burning in Hell.
2. eudemonist decides to make a "joke" about this.
3. Anybody responding to this "joke" in earnest has had their "delicate sensibilities" offended.
4. Mojo makes comments towards eudemonist which are designed to perfectly mirror the comments in the article.
5. Kittypie makes an actual, real joke.
6. eudemonist, ready to prove his moral consistency, immediately shifts gears after his "it was just a joke! joking about wishing death and pain on people is ok!" post to me, and immediately starts implying Kitty might be an alt of mine, and demanding logical answers.

Who lacks introspection, eudemonist?

You're the one having a meltdown over me wishing death on you -- which is funny, because moments earlier that was subject matter to "joke about," by your own admission, until suddenly it happened to you and it wasn't so cute -- at which point you immediately shift gears from it being the kind of subject matter for "jokes" to one you go right back to complaining of Internet conspiracies over.

Dr. Mojo PhD: 1. Your heroes wished death on others.

No, not "my heroes." Anonymous commenters on the internet. Random people, who may or may not have commented there in earnest. Again, you seem to be detached from reality.


Dr. Mojo PhD: You're the one having a meltdown...

Your self-awareness meter really is broke, ain't it?

I should point out, just so you don't get the wrong idea, that the rest of the stuff you posted has as little relation to reality as the aforementioned "heroes" designation. There simply isn't much point going into it in depth with you, as I don't think you can tell the difference.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Tell me, do you always wander into threads unbitten...

Also, still trying to figure out what this means. Were you after "unbidden"? That, at least, would make some kind of sense. Of course, that raises the question whose bidding you are doing when you wander into threads, as your statement implies such is the normal state of affairs.

eudemonist: No, not "my heroes." Anonymous commenters on the internet. Random people, who may or may not have commented there in earnest. Again, you seem to be detached from reality.

Any more or less anonymous than me? You realize I always deliberately structure my arguments to force my opponents to argue with themselves, right? You understand that the expectation is that if you would go off on me for acting like your heroes that you so vociferously defend, the expectation is that you should go off on them as well to be internally morally consistent, right?

eudemonist: Your self-awareness meter really is broke, ain't it?

eudemonist: Three "AND ANOTHER THING!" replies to a single post. Totally not having a meltdown.

-- or --

eudemonist: "When other people wish death, Hell, and eternal suffering on Andy Griffith, that's joke material for me. When the same thing is done to me to teach me a lesson in manners, it's no laughing matter." Claims other people lack self-awareness.

Dr. Mojo PhD: When other people wish death, Hell, and eternal suffering on Andy Griffith, that's joke material for me.

Damn, you really don't understand, do you? It's a joke about a link to an article linking to an article linking to anonymous trollish comments on yet another article. That may not seem silly to you, but it does to me. If you're somehow under the impression that that somehow implies I agree or endorse the comments that said link is about, you are in error.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Any more or less anonymous than me? You realize I always deliberately structure my arguments to force my opponents to argue with themselves, right? You understand that the expectation is that if you would go off on me for acting like your heroes that you so vociferously defend, the expectation is that you should go off on them as well to be internally morally consistent, right?


Just as exactly as anonymous as you, Mojo. You aren't a "liberal hero", and I don't attribute your jackassery to progressivism as whole, just as those anonymous commenters aren't "my heroes" and don't represent conservatism as a whole anywhere but in your mind.

Tell me, how has your trolling (because that's exactly what it is--saying shiat explicitly to get someone riled up) worked out for you? Have I "gone off" on you? I don't believe so. Have other liberals here decried your assholishness, as commenters on the Blaze did the assholes there? I haven't seen it.

eudemonist: Damn, you really don't understand, do you? It's a joke about a link to an article linking to an article linking to anonymous trollish comments on yet another article. That may not seem silly to you, but it does to me.

Ah, there it is, the six degrees of separation defence. "It's not wrong because it's far away. Oh wait, Mojo's doing the same thing, but to me? NIMBY! NIMBY!" Wrong is wrong, regardless of personal distance to you. Sorry to once again need to inform conservatives how morality works.

It is nice to see your story predictably evolving though. That excuse treadmill runs day and night with you, doesn't it? We've gone all the way from LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO MAKE CONSERVATIVES LOOK BAD! to "Sure it was legit, but it's so far away that it's funny."

eudemonist: Have other liberals here decried your assholishness, as commenters on the Blaze did the assholes there? I haven't seen it.

It's without need to do so. Nobody needs to decry my "assholishness" because it is, at the end of the day, justice. It serves the cause of justice. You wanted a world where this behaviour was acceptable. You wanted a world where masturbation fantasies of people burning forever in Hell like human tallow was no big d.

Well, you got it. You got that exact world. You got the Universe you wanted to live in, where that's some laughing matter. Only you can't control it. You can't control where and how that's applied and it frustrates you that all of a sudden you find yourself the victim of your own 2kool4skool attitude towards this shiat, and all of a sudden it isn't so cute, isn't it?

When a kid runs around the playground pinching little girls and can't be made to empathize that this is wrong, sometimes the only solution is to pinch that kid right back and show him just what he's doing. The only solution is to give that kid a world where the strong can hurt the weak at their whim and then remind him that to you, he is the weak.

Just like that little child, you think that makes you the victim. It doesn't. It makes you the piece of shiat -- a grown man, at that -- that needs to have death wished on him to get why it's not funny or cute; something he couldn't understand until it was done to him. A grown farking man.

What's hilarious is watching you struggle to hold these two thoughts simultaneously in your head. Watching you struggle to claim I am unjustified in my treatment of you while simultaneously claiming your own actions towards the exact same treatment are wholly acceptable.

Because if my actions are unjustified, it flows from that that the original action was equally unjustified. Which means your attempt to justify it or shelter those who would do it lumps you in the same moral category as those who are, by your own admission, unjustified. From which it flows from that that I am wholly within my moral rights to educate you on just how odious what you're trying to defend and deflect from actually is.

Alternatively, it could be that their actions are wholly justified, from which it flows that mine must be too, which means the umbrage you're taking with me is wholly unjustified.

In either case, you're simply wrong. You can choose the method by which you wish to be wrong, but you can no longer choose to be right. You burned that option right the fark up. Perhaps you didn't understand the first time I said it, so allow me to repeat myself:

You really ought to understand that I'm not a personification of everything I hate, I'm a personification of everything you think is acceptable -- well, until it's done to you, that is.

Here, Mojo. The first quote from the BoingBoing/Wonkette link, by "Red Meat", followed by multiple commenters within minutes. Painting "Red Meat" as the majority, or a hero, or "what everybody there thinks", is ludicrous. There are jerks, and there are non-jerks. Ask yourself, which of the following does Mojo sound most like?



Red Meat
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:29am
Progressive POS. Have fun burning in Hell for eternity.
---------------------------------
riseandshine
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:31am
Oh c'mon.
---------------------------------
4xeverything
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:34am
Not necessary.
---------------------------------
the_system_disconnect
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:35am
huh?
---------------------------------
Exrepublisheep
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:38am
@redmeat. You're an obvious democrat trying to make people here look bad.
---------------------------------
blackdanger10
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:38am
Way to be compassionate
---------------------------------
biohazard23
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:46am
Really? He may have been a lefty, but have some respect for the deceased. Jeez....
----------------------------------
Blazebanned
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:52am
@Blackdanger10
Libs took my compassion years ago, along with too much money from my paycheck to give to lazy, black hoodrats,white trailer trash and wet-backs.So the commie andy is did,so what good riddance.The only people i have compassion for are those like my friend, who is losing everything because of a commie prez.....
------------------------------------

Dr. Mojo PhD: We've gone all the way from LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO MAKE CONSERVATIVES LOOK BAD! to "Sure it was legit, but it's so far away that it's funny."

No, we haven't. We started at "this is an article about anonymous troll comments; how silly", with a short detour through, "Gosh, I can sell articles to Wonkette and BoingBoing about troll comments?" just for laughs. From there we traveled through, "Nobody would ever troll the Blaze for profit" and "That's as likely as Elvis!" stations, never coming close to "Those comments are acceptable" station. Maybe you saw that out a window or something. Somehow, though, you managed to derail us onto, "They must be conservative heroes" holding track, and you've been stuck there, spewing vitriolic non-sequiturs for a day and a half.

It's this serious misunderstanding about what we're even talking about that makes you so special, Mojo. That, and the never giving a straight answer to anything.

eudemonist: Here, Mojo. The first quote from the BoingBoing/Wonkette link, by "Red Meat", followed by multiple commenters within minutes. Painting "Red Meat" as the majority, or a hero, or "what everybody there thinks", is ludicrous. There are jerks, and there are non-jerks. Ask yourself, which of the following does Mojo sound most like?

I like how your freak loser ass is desperate to shift this on to me. Instead of asking an inane question that skips over a step, let's ask ourselves a far more important question: Who looks at a post like Red Meat's and thinks of ejaculating this kind of stupidity:

eudemonist: 1. Troll political site with insane comments.
2. Write article about insane comments on political site.
3. Get other sites to link to your article about insane comments on political sites, particularly from other insane political sites.
4. Profit.

Bah, that's never work. Too many steps.

In case you can't tell by the big, bold eudemonist name there, that would be you.

That's right, you saw this:

eudemonist: Red Meat
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:29am
Progressive POS. Have fun burning in Hell for eternity.

And said this:

eudemonist: 1. Troll political site with insane comments.
2. Write article about insane comments on political site.
3. Get other sites to link to your article about insane comments on political sites, particularly from other insane political sites.
4. Profit.

Aww, poor widdle conservatives. It's all the liberal's fault they did it! Oh no wait, it wasn't a conspiracy theory, it was a joke. I forgot, you've now changed your story. Sorry, because I have internal moral consistency, I'm not capable of doing that or, frankly, even understanding why a person would.

So who sounds most like Red Meat? You, asshole, the person trying to shelter those who share your political convictions by shifting the responsibility on to trolling liberals

Hope that helps, retard.

eudemonist: We started at "this is an article about anonymous troll comments; how silly",

eudemonist: 1. Troll political site with insane comments.
2. Write article about insane comments on political site.
3. Get other sites to link to your article about insane comments on political sites, particularly from other insane political sites.
4. Profit.

You normally write "this is an article about anonymous troll comments" as "Cory Doctorow/Wonkette/Boing Boing deliberately fabricated quotes on a Glenn Beck's the Blaze (which does not warrant using the qualifier "insane" as you do with Wonkette/Boing Boing), then wrote an article to smear the Blaze (who are totally not insane), and then got other insane liberal sites (oops, there's that insane qualifier, only reserved for the liberal sites)"?

Like, that's a thing you do? That seems like normal people thinking to you, scumbag?

eudemonist: It's this serious misunderstanding about what we're even talking about that makes you so special, Mojo. That, and the never giving a straight answer to anything.

Actually in point of fact I gave you straight answers to everything, and can demonstrably prove it (and actually have). You asked your stupid "IS IT WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY?!?!?!" to which I pointed out that yes, it is within the realm of possibility (directly and materially answering your question), and then pointed that possibility holds far less weight than probability.

I repeatedly pointed this out to you, and your pants-pissing response has been to claim that I think that that means it's "as likely as" Elvis (Elvis what? Still being alive? Forgot that part, moron).

Of course, anybody who actually got the education you admit you don't have realizes this is a straw man, and yet you continue to insist it's true, that that is a position I hold and not merely an example I used to illustrate the absurdity of your reasoning that probability is of equal weight to possibility. You hold this thought, and you simultaneously hold the thought that I am the unreasonable one. That's laughable, of course, your behaviour in this thread would have resulted in you flunking out of college, which is why you likely never went.

As I said, I would challenge you to another bet, but I know you'd just pussy out and claim you should be allowed to risk nothing because you don't have a college education or money, so you should be allowed to behave without consequence while sniveling and demanding others risk their own money at no risk to you.

Of course, if you were right, you'd know for a certainty there's no risk to you, so it wouldn't be a problem.

But you still won't, because despite your gut feeling that an opponent using valid rhetorical techniques to demonstrate why every thought that passes through your head is an abortion of logic means that they literally believe the example they used to illustrate that, you have a sinking, testicles-retracting-into-the-abdomen feeling that like so many other times in your worthless, loser life, you're just flat-out wrong. You know you'd lose.

So, with that out of the way, and since you're certain I don't understand, you're willing to put thousands of dollars on the line proving that, knowing you'll never lose it, right? Critical thinking professors will see your arguments as sound and valid reasoning, right? So it's no risk to you.

Something tells me that, just like last time, it will never happen. Yet you'll keep posting, and deflecting from the fact that you won't send your arguments to peer-reviewed logical analysis. Don't want to draw attention to that.

As a quick follow-up:

eudemonist: 1. Troll political site with insane comments.
2. Write article about insane comments on political site.
3. Get other sites to link to your article about insane comments on political sites, particularly from other insane political sites.
4. Profit.

Bah, that's never work. Too many steps.

sWampy
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 11:24am

Good people don't promote laws that will directly lead to the death of millions, hope someday I get to spit on his grave.

User Profile: sWampy

Member Since: September 21, 2010

That's right, Cory Doctorow created user "sWampy" almost two years ago in the anticipation that two years later, a) Obamacare would be passed and b) Andy Griffith would die.

This is indeed possible. It's possible to do that. However, if you dare point out how improbable it is, and how anybody who believes that something that improbable is realistic, then it's not that eudemonist is crazy. No, no, you see, you're the crazy one for using other things that are also possible (Elvis faked his death and is still alive at 77 years old) to illustrate how absurd it is to register an account two years in advance, maintain a posting history for it, all that in anticipation that two years later a celebrity spokesman would die at around the same time a law conservatives despise is upheld by SCOTUS.

That's normal people thinking. Normal people think that.

love the kids
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 11:22am

The guy that was the spokes person for Obamacare dies 1 week after it is upheld, 1 and counting.

User Profile: love the kids

Member Since: October 14, 2010

That's right, Cory Doctorow created user "love the kids" almost two years ago in the anticipation that two years later, a) Obamacare would be passed and b) Andy Griffith would die.

This is indeed possible. It's possible to do that. However, if you dare point out how improbable it is, and how anybody who believes that something that improbable is realistic, then it's not that eudemonist is crazy. No, no, you see, you're the crazy one for using other things that are also possible (Elvis faked his death and is still alive at 77 years old) to illustrate how absurd it is to register an account two years in advance, maintain a posting history for it, all that in anticipation that two years later a celebrity spokesman would die at around the same time a law conservatives despise is upheld by SCOTUS.

That's normal people thinking. Normal people think that.

Truthbeliever2
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 11:30am

So long Andy :)

You are a total sell out to this great nation. You are a communist piece of garbage and you will not be missed.

User Profile: Truthbeliever2
Truthbeliever2

Member Since: April 18, 2011

That's right, Cory Doctorow created user "Truthbeliever2" over a year ago in the anticipation that a year later, a) Obamacare would be passed and b) Andy Griffith would die.

This is indeed possible. It's possible to do that. However, if you dare point out how improbable it is, and how anybody who believes that something that improbable is realistic, then it's not that eudemonist is crazy. No, no, you see, you're the crazy one for using other things that are also possible (Elvis faked his death and is still alive at 77 years old) to illustrate how absurd it is to register an account a year in advance, maintain a posting history for it, all that in anticipation that a year later a celebrity spokesman would die at around the same time a law conservatives despise is upheld by SCOTUS.

That's normal people thinking. Normal people think that.

CatB
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 11:45am

I agree with LOVE THE KIDS .. ironic isn't it .. I guess his evil was done (at least he was). Now it is up to Patriots to undo the damage done by these Marxists.

User Profile: CatB

Member Since: September 15, 2010

That's right, Cory Doctorow created user "CatB" almost two years ago in the anticipation that two years later, a) Obamacare would be passed and b) Andy Griffith would die.

This is indeed possible. It's possible to do that. However, if you dare point out how improbable it is, and how anybody who believes that something that improbable is realistic, then it's not that eudemonist is crazy. No, no, you see, you're the crazy one for using other things that are also possible (Elvis faked his death and is still alive at 77 years old) to illustrate how absurd it is to register an account two years in advance, maintain a posting history for it, all that in anticipation that two years later a celebrity spokesman would die at around the same time a law conservatives despise is upheld by SCOTUS.

That's normal people thinking. Normal people think that.

Red Meat
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 12:12pm

Progressive POS. Always was.

Part of the great brainwashing of America.
http://douglasdrenkow.com/progressivethinking/media/medi3.htm

User Profile: Red Meat
Red Meat

Member Since: January 19, 2011


That's right, Cory Doctorow created user "Red Meat" over a year ago in the anticipation that a year later, a) Obamacare would be passed and b) Andy Griffith would die.

This is indeed possible. It's possible to do that. However, if you dare point out how improbable it is, and how anybody who believes that something that improbable is realistic, then it's not that eudemonist is crazy. No, no, you see, you're the crazy one for using other things that are also possible (Elvis faked his death and is still alive at 77 years old) to illustrate how absurd it is to register an account a year in advance, maintain a posting history for it, all that in anticipation that a year later a celebrity spokesman would die at around the same time a law conservatives despise is upheld by SCOTUS.

That's normal people thinking. Normal people think that.

Wool-Free Vision
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 12:16pm

Sadly, my first thought when I saw the headline was "if he'd passed away at age 82 I would have missed him so much more."

[...]

To sum up: I would have felt a lot worse about losing this sellout to the Grim Reaper 4 years ago.

Now, I only feel angry the old shill didn't live another year or two so he'd have to face a "death panel" before kicking it. The old bastrd died too soon to reap what he helped sow. I feel cheated that we'll never get to hear him lament his decision to be a wh0re for the socialist DNC.

R.I.P. Sheriff Taylor. Not you

User Profile: Wool-Free Vision
Wool-Free Vision

Member Since: September 27, 2011

That's right, Cory Doctorow created user "Wool-Free Vision" just under a year ago in the anticipation that a year later, a) Obamacare would be passed and b) Andy Griffith would die.

This is indeed possible. It's possible to do that. However, if you dare point out how improbable it is, and how anybody who believes that something that improbable is realistic, then it's not that eudemonist is crazy. No, no, you see, you're the crazy one for using other things that are also possible (Elvis faked his death and is still alive at 77 years old) to illustrate how absurd it is to register an account a year in advance, maintain a posting history for it, all that in anticipation that a year later a celebrity spokesman would die at around the same time a law conservatives despise is upheld by SCOTUS.

That's normal people thinking. Normal people think that.

Dr. Mojo PhD: You normally write "this is an article about anonymous troll comments" as "Cory Doctorow/Wonkette/Boing Boing deliberately fabricated quotes on a Glenn Beck's the Blaze (which does not warrant using the qualifier "insane" as you do with Wonkette/Boing Boing), then wrote an article to smear the Blaze (who are totally not insane), and then got other insane liberal sites (oops, there's that insane qualifier, only reserved for the liberal sites)"?

I don't know who Cory Doctorow is. My "4-step Plan to Profit" you're so worked up about simply pointed out that we don't know who wrote the comments and that such a maneuver could be exploited for profit.

I used the insane qualifier with regard to the comments section of The Blaze (please point out which segments of the article itself were derogatory, if you disagree with that assessment. The second insane political site in the above would be FARK.com. I disagree with your (presumed) assessment of this as a liberal site, as well as any notion it is somehow sane.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Who looks at a post like Red Meat's and thinks of ejaculating this kind of stupidity:

Who looks at a troll post and thinks it might be a troll post? Me.
Who makes jokes about articles about troll posts? Me.
Who thinks people make money off of articles? Me.
Who makes jokes about people making money off of articles about troll posts? Me.
Who thinks Red Meat is a troll? Me.

Your most basic premise is flawed--that I support or in any way endorse the hateful comments in the Blaze comment section. The fact that I would argue that those are likely trolls severely undercuts your belief that I hold those comments in high regard. It's neat how you look past this basic disjunction.

Last follow-up: Those are all from a single thread in the comments section. Literally just one thread, the first one you see when you open up The Blaze's page. When eudemonist says this:

eudemonist: Here, Mojo. The first quote from the BoingBoing/Wonkette link, by "Red Meat", followed by multiple commenters within minutes. Painting "Red Meat" as the majority

...he's knowingly lying.

His quote from Red Meat is from the thread in the comments section I highlighted. There's 13 total posts to that comment thread. The break down is as follows:

-4 comments on how Andy wasn't bad or did something wrong, but wasn't perfect.
-1 comment bashing America and Republicans.
-1 comment bashing the pieces of shiat eudemonist is claiming are all in on a liberal conspiracy.
-7 comments in the vein quoted above (I quoted six and left off the seventh, calling him a "liberal traitor").

Got that? It's not even that they represent the plurality of that thread. They straight-up represent the majority of that comment thread. 13 comments. 7 of them are negative. Pure majority.

You'll notice that one of the comments decrying Red Meat that eudemonist posted (from a separate thread waaaaaaaaay at the bottom of the page he had to skip over the thread I quoted to find) also advances the "YOU SAID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE, YOU'RE CLEARLY JUST IN ON CORY DOCTOROW'S LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO MAKE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD" retard argument.

So eudemonist, aside from being a total piece of dogshiat that thinks that this is acceptable, will literally lie and, knowing something represents the majority, claim it doesn't anyway (not that this total alteration of his original claim that Cory Doctorow created and maintained multiple accounts on the Blaze for multiple years simply to write articles about those accounts shouldn't cause you to question his penchant for mendacity anyway).

eudemonist: Your most basic premise is flawed-- Your most basic premise is flawed--that I support or in any way endorse the hateful comments in the Blaze comment section. The fact that I would argue that those are likely trolls severely undercuts your belief that I hold those comments in high regard. It's neat how you look past this basic disjunction.

Putting aside for the moment my basic premise is that you're an utter and complete moron who advances grotesquely improbable events to denigrate liberals and simultaneously shelter conservatives from their actions, to wit my original reply to you (which would be, by extension, my most basic premise, again, not that I'd expect you to actually understand that):

Dr. Mojo PhD: The mind of a conservative, ladies and gentlemen:

1. We have direct evidence conservatives celebrate the deaths of people they hate.
2. We have direct evidence conservatives see the specter of "communism" in everything, including "Obamacare".
3. We have direct evidence conservatives base their hatred on this imaginary specter.

Normal person conclusion: The comments hating on a dead man for supporting Barack Obama and HRC, and written on a conservative website (Glenn Beck's The Blaze) that would attract a mostly conservative audience were written by conservatives behaving predictably based on past actions.

Insane person (aka eudemonist) conclusion: It's a liberal conspiracy!

...in which nowhere does it appear that you're endorsing these comments, just that you're completely farking insane and don't think normal people thoughts (from which again it follows that this is not and could not be my most basic premise from which my argument springs, though as KittyPie pointed out you don't seem able to actually read), I already succinctly acknowledged and dealt with what you incorrectly believe (oh look, eudemonist is wrong again) my most basic premise to be:

Dr. Mojo PhD: though your reaction formation

Again, I know you don't have an education (it seriously doesn't show though, for real) so you would never recognize the words "reaction formation" and know and understand what they mean, but reaction formation is when a person speaks loudly about how they condemn a belief they secretly hold, so as to cover up a belief they know to be wrong.

So no, it's not that I ignored it, you farking moron, I dealt with your pathetic "basic disjunction" yesterday. It is demonstrably reaction formation.

Why else would you:

1. Make your original post one that purports that evil liberals conspired to maintain multiple posting identities with activity spanning multiple years, which by coincidence, if true, also happens shelters those who share your conservative political beliefs (I'm sure you'd suggest the same thing for liberals, after all, when a self-avowed liberal subjects you to the very same treatment you're defending, you take it in earnest, which is totally the same as treating as a) a conspiracy or b) a joke, I'm never sure just where on the excuse treadmill you're stepping until you offer it up) from the consequences of their actions (that being a negative view towards their and your political beliefs).

2. Vociferously maintain this position, defending it on the basis that it's "possible".

3. Throw a biatch fit when somebody points out that "possible" does not translate to "probable".

4. Change your story and justification on multiple occasions.

Unless the end goal had ultimately nothing to do with "trollish" comments and everything to do with protecting your politics from negative fall-out? It makes no sense.

Furthermore your statement is idiotic on the basis of the fact that multiple historical instances indicate that people will often decry something as evil and yet attempt to shift blame to another person.

For example, in the Duke Lacrosse Rape case, the woman who accused the Duke players of being rapists a) knew rape was wrong and b) knew or reasonably ought to have known making false accusations of rape diminishes the gravity of such accusations. It is not a valid defense for her to say "YOU PEOPLE IGNORE A BASIC FACT. I KNOW RAPE IS WRONG, SO I KNOW ANYTHING WHICH DIMINISHES THE CAPACITY OF THIS WRONGNESS IS ALSO WRONG, SO WHY ELSE WOULD I ACCUSE THEM OF THIS? THEREFORE, I MUST BE TELLING THE TRUTH!"

You know (or reasonably ought to know) that this is true, yet you just attempted the exact same maneuver here.

You're worthless, everything you post is worthless, and yet you'll never stop. It's amusing, really, this level of self-destructive behaviour really would have had you selected against if it wasn't for the bleeding-hearts who incorrectly believed lives even as aborted and useless as yours to have worth.

Dr. Mojo PhD: His quote from Red Meat is from the thread in the comments section I highlighted. There's 13 total posts to that comment thread.

Erm, not on my internet, there's not. There's one more post from Red Meat, with no text but a link.
Didn't have to skip over anything to get to anything: Link. Right there, bigger'n shiat.


Dr. Mojo PhD: that thinks that this is acceptable

No. Not at all. Only in your fevered dream of justified arrogance. You want to believe it, so you do.

eudemonist: Erm, not on my internet, there's not.

Oh, ok then. We've found your problem. You exist in an alternate reality.



I'm sure it's your "Internet", though. Nobody's fault, especially not yours. Psycho.

Hmm, the post I see from Red Meat has a different timestamp:


Red Meat
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:29am
Progressive POS. Have fun burning in Hell for eternity.


It also does not include the link yours shows. Looks like that person is spamming the comments section with the same comment multiple times, which seems awful trolly to me.

What timestamp does the article itself have? Mine shows:
Andy Griffith Dies at 86
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 10:25am by Jonathon M. Seidl

I think I've figured out what's up...you're looking at newest comments first. The "Boobies from Red Meat that shows up" you quote is actually his last post, where he repeats his same troll spiel.


Red Meat
Posted on July 3, 2012 at 12:12pm
Progressive POS. Always was.

Part of the great brainwashing of America.
http://douglasdrenkow.com/progressivethinking/media/medi3.htm


Not sure how he could have posted that about Mr. Griffith on July 2, as your screencap shows, given that Andy didn't die 'til July 3. Is your intenet...from the future?

Dr. Mojo PhD: ...he's knowingly lying.

His quote from Red Meat is from the thread in the comments section I highlighted.

Come back, Mojo! Come explain how the quote in the comments section you highlighted is entirely different from my quote from Red Meat, and how you not being able to tell the difference makes me an illiterate liar! Come, tell us how calling someone else a liar while lying through your teeth is some type of genius presumptive strike using your own lies to counteract the inevitable falsehoods you are so certain will be forthcoming! Come explain how the post with the latest timestamp is actually the Boobies in your reality! Please, the world needs to know!