The bishops of boredom

When I wrote:

Nick Davies exposes the distortion in the corporate media and does so without boring you to death trying to prove that he is "holier than thou".

I knew that it wouldn't be long before the tedium twins at MediaLens targeted Davies for the heinous crime of producing a book of media criticism that didn't mention Chomsky, Herman, Piglet or their own dull publications.

So, this morning I get treated to the first of a two-parter dedicated to Davies - or more truthfully dedicated to the pious rantings of a couple of really boring men.

Pilger has declared Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent nothing less than the “Greatest book of the twentieth century”.

Is that a joke - or are these fuckers really that dull?

Warszawa - "troof seeker"

Retarded 9/11 troofer, warszawa, has hissy fit on PoV blog:

• William Blum's blatant and elementary error.
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 20:54:11, in reply to "William Blum on 9-11"
  
  "I do wish you guys in the 9/11 Truth Movement luck; if you succeed in proving that it was an inside job,..."
  
  Blum is someone whose writings I've often admired, but his argument here is simply ridiculous.
  
  To state the obvious: It is nobody's job, in any movement, to prove anything. No-one is obliged to be Philip Marlowe or Perry Mason. It seems that Americans have still to learn the shocking truth: that these heroic ace sleuths are in fact mere fictional characters, like Santa Claus, Forrest Gump and the honest-to-goodness self-made millionaire. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Burden of Proof lies with the Bush gang alone, who rule the country, who alone have access to all the evidence, and who alone claim to have solved the crime, but who have never even seriously investigated it. Their very own handpicked toadies - Cleland, Kean and Hamilton - have themselves now admitted that America was "scammed", that the 9/11 Commission was "obstructed" by the CIA and the White House, and that even that feeble, compromised, underfunded, hamstrung Commission was - in addition - deliberately "set up to fail".
  
  So the Official Account is a worthless fraud. Until this issue reaches a court of law, that is all that anyone can prove, and that is all that anyone can be expected to prove. It has now been proven many times over. Its very authors have now admitted as much.
  
  "To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. "
  
  "A scenario"! - What the hell is it with Americans - even with "progressives" of Blum's calibre? Have their brains all been scrambled by decades of 24-hour cable TV?
  
  The task is not to "win over" the fastidious channel-surfer William Blum; the task is not to come up with a "plausible" "scenario", or a totally cool plot-twist, or even a cracking punchline; the task is to investigate a crime of mass murder.
  
  Ask any policeman or lawyer: There are well-established ways of doing such a thing. There are methods that have been tried and tested over the course of centuries. Those methods are effective. So the task is manageable, if you have police officers to enforce it. But how could that task be managed by anyone in what Blum calls "the 9/11 Truth Movement"? How could they possibly "prove it was an inside job"?
  
  William Blum is not just missing the point and reversing the Burden of Proof; he is demanding the impossible.
  
  Because nobody in what Blum calls "the 9/11 Truth Movement" can:
  
  - exercise powers of subpoena;
  
  - force the CIA to release the evidence, including the evidence that its secret Guantanamo prisoners actually did say what the CIA claims they said;
  
  - compel the airlines to release CCTV evidence that the alleged hijackers were actually even on the planes;
  
  - interrogate Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Myers;
  
  - force them or any other witness or Person of Interest to testify under oath.
  
  Etcetera. Just for starters.
  
  All this is obvious, obvious, obvious. William Blum should switch his telly off and grow up.




• "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud"
  
  Posted by g33kThug on January 16, 2008, 21:29:39, in reply to "William Blum's blatant and elementary error."
  
  
  Yawn
  
  "To state the obvious: It is nobody's job, in any movement, to prove anything."
  
  Great position - thus enabling you to bore and harass netizens with your worthless mantras: the Bush Gang did it, the Official Story is clearly false, the hijackers are still alive, blah blah blah - without having to provide a shred of evidence.




• Look, with all DUE politeness...
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 22:12:04, in reply to ""So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  PISS OFF, YOU ATTENTION-SEEKING OAF.
  
  That's all the response your predictably oafish "response" deserves. You are a chronic waste of time - or at least you want to be.
  
  MODS: Please regard this is an official complaint about The Oaf. You know I have recently done *precisely* what you requested in your board rules; you know how you responded to my response; so it's your move now.
  
  Look at the quality of this cretin's posts. This is his idea of "political discussion".
  
  Very, very clearly, the only possible response to such an oafish, pea-brained homophobic Tory pillock is abuse - because he is not remotely interested in an honest argument, nor is he remotely capable of it. And it is NOT a good policy to let such reactionary powerworshipping cretins get away with murder, WITHOUT a response. Simply ignoring the Omnipresent Oaf who calls himself Thug is NOT a serious option. To pretend it is, is to ignore the nature of politics entirely.
  
  It's your board, Mods, so it's your move. Choose the kind of "online forum for political discussion" you want to have. If it has now become an open playground for timewasting, ad-posting, complacently "contrarian" Tory Oafs, then please let me know. Because I believe the online edition of the Daily Mail already provides such a playground, and I don't understand the need to duplicate it.
  
  Thank you.




• Political discussion?
  Posted by g33kThug on January 16, 2008, 22:39:21, in reply to "Look, with all DUE politeness..."
  
  Where is the "political discussion" in your posts?
  
  Your position:
  
  "To state the obvious: It is nobody's job, in any movement, to prove anything."
  
  makes political discussion impossible.
  
  Politically, it's also about the most naive statement that I've read in long time - the sort of statement that could only be made by somebody who has little knowledge of the history of struggles for freedom.
  
  Accusing others of "power worship" is laughable. You defer to the law to answer your 9/11 questions and you spend every other post calling on the board administrators to take action against people who say stuff that you don't like.
  
  And "your" capacity for abuse seemingly has no limits - I'm now a "Tory" and a "homophobe" as well as all the other names that you've levelled at me in the last 18 months.




• "I'm now a "Tory" and a "homophobe""
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 23:09:33, in reply to "Political discussion?"
  
  Yes, precisely. For once, you've understood something. (Statistically, it had to happen eventually.)
  
  You are very obviously a Tory and a homophobe. If you doubt this, it merely demonstrates that you cannot even read your own posts. You are the very model of a Top Gear-watching, animal-rights-despising, consumer-toy-addicted, BBC-believing, insecurely-bragging, "fruit"-fearing, complacent, suburbanite Home Counties pub bore.
  
  "Where is the "political discussion" in your posts?"
  
  It's in my posts. You are admittedly sentient, but equally clearly illiterate. Or more likely, you simply pretend to be illiterate, because it suits you to do so and it allows you to waste people's time even more effectively.
  
  But not with me, matey. So fvck you, and fvck off.




• Eelpie, you are wasting your time with The Oaf,
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 22:29:14, in reply to "Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  The more politely and rationally you argue, the more cretinous and dishonest his response will be. He is a Tory Oaf and a troll. (I predict that his reponse to your post - if any - will be in his well-practiced Gollum Mode, because he knows very well when he has been exceptionally oafish and needs to slink away from the headmaster.)




• Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud"
  Posted by g33kThug on January 16, 2008, 22:56:59, in reply to "Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  On the contrary, the official account is a potent legend, and the essence of a legend is that it is unverifiable.
  
  It is literally impossible to verify the U.S. government's assertions about the events of Sept 11th 2001.
  
  
  I differentiate between the "official account" and the officially collected evidence. The conspiracy theorists seem to consider them one and the same.
  
  Verification is possible (not instant, but possible) because of the professionalism and rationalism of those who gathered and assessed the evidence.
  
  Claiming that this process and the conclusions drawn by experts is worthless and unscientific - especially if you aren't prepared to provide your own rational explanation - is what makes the conspiracy theorist look like a nut nut.
  
  So let's get back to discussing the ridiculous claims - like routine interception of civilian aircraft pre-9/11 - so that we can dispense with "stand down" theories and get on to more interesting stuff.




• The Oaf in Full Oafishness
  Posted by warszawa on January 16, 2008, 23:20:45, in reply to "Re: "So the Official Account is a worthless fraud""
  
  "Verification is possible (not instant, but possible) because of the professionalism and rationalism of those who gathered and assessed the evidence. "
  
  Leaving aside all the rest of the rubbish in this post (how did The Tory Oaf manage to pack so much crap into such a tiny space?): "Rationalism" [sic]? It's tempting to say 'Shurely shome mishtake?' But of course this is what we get when Jeremy Clarkson tries to emulate Wittgenstein.
  
  What a waste of time you are, Oaf. You're funniest when you're trying hard to look serious.

Improving the PoV banner

Well *I* thought it was funny...


You give people the benefit of your professional retouching skills (and a bit of CSS) and what thanks do you get?

Money for nothing and your clips for free

Specialized and Google have just announced the Innovate or Die Pedal-Powered Machine Contest.

It's billed as an attempt to "save our planet, one pedal stroke at a time" - but the terms and conditions look more like Specialized are "increasing their marketing materials, one free video at a time".

One winner (or team of up to 5 people) will get $5000 and a bike. Five runner-up prizes of $550 bikes will also be handed out and a further 200 individuals or teams will receive T shirts.

And all Specialized (and their representatives) get in return are thousands of videos representing a huge amount of labour and expertise from the entrants.

Videos which they have made themselves entitled to use free of charge in any medium (whether it exists today or not) in any way they choose, worldwide and in perpetuity.

(Unless you live in Poland - in which case Specialized can only abuse your rights for 5 years.)

And, if you accidentally infringe somebody else's copyright, patent or cause any other legal problem that leaves Specialized at risk of legal action then you also have to pay all the legal fees and damages incurred - including Specialized's.

Oh, nearly forgot, Specialized also get to feature your name, address and personal details in any way that they see fit too.

Nice to see these companies doing their bit for the environment - shame it's accompanied by an old fashioned right's grab from individuals who deserve to be compensated like any other film maker who produces work for advertising campaigns.

Randomness, Reformation, Creationists and ConspiroNumpties

So it's Wednesday night and I'm watching a documentary on BBC4 about the rise of Protestantism.

In the interests of balance - because the Reformation was looking like too much of a good thing - they interview some dopey American Creationist.

She states that Darwin's theories (aka The Official Story) is demonstrably false in many respects. She then reveals that by demonstrably false that she really means that some bits of the theory can't be proved to her satisfaction.

The term "demonstrably false" reminded me of the 9/11 ConspiroNumpties, especially that big old windbag Alex Jones.

It also reminded me of Nassim Taleb's book "Fooled by Randomness" in which he produced a Table of Confusion that I like to glance at every so often to check if I'm being fooled.

Here is an excerpt:

Luck	Skills
Probability	Certainty
Belief, conjecture	Knowledge, certitude
Theory	Reality
Anecdote, coincidence	Causality, law
Forecast	Prophecy
Noise	Signal
Epistemic probability	Physical probability
Induction	Deduction
Synthetic proposition	Analytic proposition
Contingent	Certain
Contingent	Necessary
Contingent	True in all possible worlds

It's human to want to move from left to right across the table - but doing so prematurely or without sufficient evidence or testing means that you are being fooled by randomness.

The creationists and the conspiracy theorists live their lives in a permanently fooled state. Yet they believe (meaning they "know") that it is the rest of us who are the poor fools...

Monkey Land

Receiving junk mail from MediaLensers?

Picture this before you waste time responding:

9/11 Attention Seekers

What is it with these ConspiroNumpties™?

Is it me, or are they all mentally retarded fuckwits?

Question their daft theories on a message board and they are all over you like impetigo.

Make a point and you're a troll. Respond and you're accused of being a fucking stalker.

Here are some quotes that illustrate the Conspironumptie™ MO from the anonymous (aren't they always), fuckwitted and retarded warszawa at Persistence of Vision.

• 
  AnonoMartin makes not even a whiff of a hint of an effort to respond to any point actually made. Instead, he brays, he crows, he boasts, he whinges, he misses the point, he calls people names (even when they haven't entered the thread), he drags up past "triumphs", and when all else fails (as it inevitably does) he shows us unsolicited photos of his racing bike. What next, AnonoMartin? Holiday snaps? Old report cards? Tales of your last Rotary Club function?
  
  Instead, you might (for once) try to actually answer a question put to you: What *is* a "conspiracy theorist"? Go on. Give us a definition that's more than just an evasion or a playground taunt.




• Your posts are beyond satire.
  
  There is indeed no point, because it's entirely irrelevant. (As it happens, I think motor racing is the most boring and obnoxious "sport" in existence, so it doesn't surprise me that you like it. But it's entirely beside the point.)
  
  And you still haven't even *attempted* to answer the question, because you can't. Instead, you give us more of your snaps, more of your evasions, apparently expecting people to admire your social skills. It's just incredible.




• Eelpie had a message removed for calling you a troll; but you are in fact, and very obviously, a troll:



• Trolling (2): Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.



• - and you're a deeply boring and nasty and stupid troll at that; a playground show-off and winder-upper with nothing interesting to say about anything, ever. The topic of this thread is the news of George Tenet's multiple meetings in late August with the people named above. Of this you know nothing and care nothing - yet still you feel the urge to "comment", nastily and stupidly and irrelevantly. You fill up this board with piss-poor cartoons, dismal "humour" (sic), fatuous boasts, digs, provocations, holiday snaps, wheedling pleas for understanding, and constant ridiculous advertisements for your ridiculous self. On the very rare occasions when you actually post something vaguely resembling an argument, you simply ignore any responses that deal with that argument, responding instead with some infantile wind-up ("AnonoLeftie" /"ConspiroNumoptie" - geddit??!?) or with a photo of your latest spiffing day out at Brand's Hatch, Butlin's or Legoland.
  
  In short: you are a troll, and a chronic waste of time. (And to hear you describe anyone as an "Attention Seeker" is truly beyond satire.)

Odd. Aren't you supposed to ignore trolls?

Well, if you're fucking stupid enough to have to look up the definition of troll at answers.com then you're obviously none to bright...

Perhaps somebody can let me know how old warszawa is? I'm worried that I might be accused of taunting a child...

warszawa aka boresabore

The most numpty of the ConspiroNumpties hit rock bottom today by appealing to the owner of the Persistence of Vision message board to protect him from being stalked:

• MODFATHER: This TROLL won't stop stalking me.
  Posted by warszawa on March 29, 2007, 19:18:54, in reply to "What are you after? My phone number?"
  
  "you are in real-life a complete non-entity who pulls his "Captain TruthSeeker" underpants over his trousers" (etc.)
  
  Modfather, could you please either tell me precisely what is "constructive" about this post (or indeed any other by Thuglet), or else tell this sad, anonymous, passive-aggressive, attention-seeking entity to stop breathing kebab-fumes through my letter-box. Thank you.

Sadly the post has been replaced with a moderator's message - but not before I'd seen it and laughed heartily.

Like most things in this sad little AnonoLeftie's fantasy world, the normal meanings of words don't apply. Warszawa's inability to refrain from responding to my posts - even if it is just to post "****TROLL ALERT****(NM)" over and over again - has become evidence of my stalking.

Before they fall from the PoV message board we should attempt to preserve warszawa's crazed scrawlings for posterity:

• http://members.boardhost.com/DT3rd/msg/1174486586.html
  AnonoBoozer(TM): "And all because the lay-deez love..."
  Posted by warszawa on March 21, 2007, 14:16:26, in reply to "Re: An AnonoLeftie™ writes"
  
  "The thugStyle© CSS template was created on a boring train journey home last night."
  
  What a guy! Rustles up templates at the drop of a hat. Tells us all about it, regardless of whether we want to know or not. Wears, like, really, really cool shades. Posts unsolicited photos of himself in, like, really, really cool shades. (Is that a yacht he's on? Maybe it's his yacht!) Makes frank, unfrightened reference to laydees' arses. (Ooh la la! No prisoner of dull bourgeois conformity he!) Wears black polo-necks. Drinks really really really BIG beers. (C'est formidable! What a capacity he must have!) Refers to himself constantly in the third person. Whinges, anonymously, about other people's anonymity. Calls himself 'Thug'.
  
  It's like, really, really, really impressive, all that. (But not very like it.) I'm trying to think who he reminds me of.
  
  

  ---

  
  
  http://members.boardhost.com/DT3rd/msg/1172310018.html
  10 characteristics of a Coincidence Theory Troll
  Posted by warszawa on February 24, 2007, 9:40:18, in reply to "10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists"
  
  1. Profound stupidity.
  2. Chronic mendacity.
  3. Inability not to miss the point.
  4. Primary schoolboy's delight in provoking irritated or disgusted responses.
  5. Gift for getting other people's posts deleted while his own infantile wind-ups remain.
  6. Incessant issuing of content-free blanket insults ("conspironumpties", etc.) towards people - Thompson, McKinney, Ahmed, McGowan, Meacher, "the Jersey Girls", Hoffman, Bröckers, Hauss, Levis, Ganser, etc., etc., etc. - who are infinitely superior to him in every way, and whose writings he has either never read or abjectly failed to understand.
  7. Inability to distinguish between insults and argument.
  8. Snideness/slipperiness/shiftiness.
  9. Inexplicably high opinion of himself.
  10. Dead scary user-name.
  (NOTE: Point 5 is the Coincidennce Theorist Troll's only detectable real talent. No doubt that's why he cultivates it so assiduously.)
  
  

  ---

  
  
  followed shortly by another post because he'd lost his bottle:
  
  P.S. I don't mean anybody in particular by this.
  Posted by warszawa on February 24, 2007, 9:46:20, in reply to "10 characteristics of a Coincidence Theory Troll"
  
  Any resemblance to actual persons, living, dead or merely brain-dead, is purely etc.
  
  (Just as certain Coincidence Theory Trolls don't mean anybody in particular when they're issuing their incessant blanket insults and their childish wind-up attempts masquerading as arguments.)

I made him a logo to see if I could cheer him up a bit, but the PoV moderator deleted it and really hurt my feelings by declaring that it wasn't "constructive" :-(