i know it's gold, that it's a notchback, and that it's a 4 speed. 86, i think. i'm told it's partly rebuilt from a black '85 coupe and a red 85 se. it's rumbly as heck, so i'm sure it's a 6 cylinder.
it was a sun/rain damaged "smoker". the interior, which was originally tan, came from the earlier black car. various other stuff - sail panels, marker lights, headlamp motor, taillights, a wheel, etc. - also made their way in... along with quite a bit of my money, for new parts. i'm not the resident gearhead, so anything i supply by way of info is strictly secondhand, and i won't vouch for its precision.
in retrospect, the thing that really creeps me out about this whole thing is todd's increasingly obvious sexual pathology.
it is literally inconceivable to him that a woman could take legitimate - and strongly worded - offense to what yellow posted, without an abuse history as her motivation, no matter how offensive that post actually was. so he invents such a history for me... only to use it to play his dominance games: first, by dismissing the "victimhood" he's invented for me; second, by expressing a condescending "pity" for my supposed dementia. if the history were real, his two postures with respect to it would be damning to his own claims of moral superiority. given that it is not, the whole charade reveals nothing so much as a sick-minded little boy.
Originally posted by Toddster: Steve, you would disagree with me if I stated that the world was an oblate sheroid! Let's put this in context, read EVERY post Eutwerpe has ever written...then get bak to me.
You're the one with the point to prove, you do your own research. And nice attempt to poison the well.
quote
BTW, it will be easy, she does not own a Fiero and has only posted ONE post in any other forum beside Totally O/T. ALL the rest are male bashing posts in predominantly sexually related threads
Let he who is without sin...
Top Ten Search Results when putting "Toddster" and searching all forums: 1: What do you think about the Primary results? 2: More WMD Found in Iraq 3: Will The Patriot Act Eventually Bring About Another Kent State? 4: Bush countdown 5: Don't mess with Israel! 6: Peak Oil nonsense. A hillarious Canadian Comic 7: Arab News: U.S. didn't learn it's lesson from 9/11 8: George bush hates Americans 9: Toddster's Real Estate Series: All About Credit! 10: The Coronation Of Pelosi
So except for one real estate post, all of your top ten results have been in political threads. Does that mean that you are only interested in politics and posting about what you do for a living?
i don't understand how we can be at war with a non-entity.
quote
here's an area where i know just about exactly nothing, so could you expand on that? what occurs to me is that while the UCMJ and the civil legal system may both devolve directly from the constitution, they do not necessarily relate, one to the other. rules of evidence, for instance, are not defined by the constitution, so could be quite different for each system. could you take up a few of what you consider relevant points of departure between military and civilian justice?
quote
i agree that he is probably about to be roasted and basted, but i'm curious...
would it be at all possible, or relevant, for him to demonstrate that the task he was being told to undertake did not in any material way defend the constitution? it seems to me that "true faith and allegiance" isn't the same as total obedience, so that clause doesn't come into effect, and that the main item to be used against him with respect to the oath would be the question of his duties.
edit: oops. scratch the main part of that. i didn't clearly read the part where you indicated that the officer's oath is in addition to the enlistment oath, which is pretty specific about following orders.
the first curiosity stands, though.
quote
whether or not you agree that it is - and you make it clear that you don't - i find it hard to believe that your certainty is so concrete, that it completely blinds you to anyone else's doubt.
so was this a rhetorical flourish, or are you really that unseeing?
quote
this is one of the more inventive bits of armchair-warrior bullshit i've seen. nicely done. you really do have this knack for overstating anything, just so you can bulldog a corner.
i think i'll just see if any actual military historians care to chime in on this one.
None so far...
quote
oooh, snap. you're getting almost as good as voytek, now.
yeah, yeah, i'm all impressed with the paperweights on your bookshelves. gee, next we'll start trading transcripts. do you have a fallback position that doesn't involve wagging parts of your anatomy? sheesh. like i said, i'll wait for some others to weigh in - should they choose to do so - who have something to offer other than bellicose overgeneralizations. who knows? i might even be persuaded. but not by your self-aggrandizing blowhardiness.
Oh, maybe that was male-bashing. One male in particular.
quote
have i argued that?
quote
as i undersand it, the principal argument for the war in iraq being one of US aggression is that iraq did not pose a direct immediate threat. there had been no conflict with them since the kuwait action. they were not involved with those who brought down the towers. they just weren't in much of a position to do much at all outside their own borders, and even their supposed threat to our allies was mostly a chimera. it was, therefore, a solely pre-emptive invasion, that can only be differentiated from a "war of aggression" because we're the good guys.
or something to that effect.
quote
anyway, to address the actual point without the extraneous chest-beating... while "fascism" may have been the enemy in WWII (at least in the western theater), and one could make the case that "old world imperalism" may have been the enemy in WWI, it is also the case that these ideologies were directly associated with, and in fact were the policies of, nation states... that it was the armies of those nations with whom we fought, and that it was the leaders of those nations who signed the surrenders.
there will be no similar event in the so-called "war against terrorism". the dynamics are very - though not necessarily entirely - different.
quote
aside from the preamble, a very direct, concrete example. thank you.
it raises other questions, which i need to think about a little, before i come back to it. it's getting late, and i'm not feeling all that cogent.
quote
many cases could be made, as you have just done. but to say "i can't see [...]" is either to make the blanket assertion that no contrary case has enough merit even to be considered, or that you actually can't imagine the possibility of such a case.
and that was my point. it was a more serious example of meta-argument (a notion i just introduced to fierobear). in many instances, i'm far less interested in the competing premises and cases themselves, then in how the ways in which they are presented reflect individual and group worldviews.
quote
and there it is again.
it seems to me that indeed there is doubt, now on two levels.... first, of the assertion itself; second, of your framing.
would you care to make another similar declaration, and add a third?
edit: "i don't understand that", or "i don't understand this opinion about that" is different from "i don't understand how anyone could hold this opinion about that."
quote
we crossposted. see edit above.
None so far...
quote
and i'm underwhelmed by your pretensions.
take a look around, yourself. people regularly dismiss each other on much more superficial grounds than the textual equivalent of standing too close. you are yourself a prime example, so convinced are you of your own supremacy, and your apparent compulsion to puff your chest about it all the time.
as it happens, i find your content redundant and self-serving, and your means of presenting it, fatuous. there are many people here who provide me with interesting alternative perspectives to my own. you are simply not one of them.
Maybe male-bashing. One male in particular at any rate.
quote
one of the problems with over-reaching in an attempt to be clever, is that you back yourself into predictable corners. this really was the only probable direction for you to take.
i suppose, then, that if someone strikes me, then in striking him or her back i am fighting with the ideology of bullying, and not the person?
sophistic poppycock. all motivations then become "ideologies," no matter how venal or trivial.
i return to my earlier example, and posit a question: who's going to sign the surrender? what are the victory conditions? in a conventional war, a nation might resign the conflict when its resources as an entity are so depleted that it can no longer function (or exist) as that entity. what is the analogy, if any, to the so-called "war on terror"?
my first thought is that the war is meaningless as a "war" unless we identify and openly enter into conflict with all the state sponsors of those who employ terrorism as a tactic (and to whom the ideology seems to me to be a recruitment tool, not a purpose). which is not something i think we want to do. and even if we do, it is the nature of a revolutionary ideology to metastasize. so we're back to the original question: how to wage war with a non-entity.
so what is the real solution, if any?
this is not something to which i will pretend to have an answer.
i'm not terribly impressed with anyone who would.
quote
whaddaya mean "we", lone ranger?
nice rhetoric, but not up to the standard of what you invoke.
the questions all still stand. but for the moment, i'll make it easy for you, and ask just one:
how do you know when the war's over?
and please don't just say "when 'they' stop attacking us." try to follow out the idea, rather than just pontificate.
quote
hehehehe... "try not to be so obvious," i say, in not so many words.... and you're so much of a little bulldog, you really just can't help yourself.
ah, so my observation was correct after all. very good.
you're taking up the Wichita technique, now? talk out of your ass about people and pretend to argue with your assumptions about them? for a brief period, i thought that of the two most argumentative ideologues on this forum, you were the least likely to be so absurd. -shrug-. ah well. it's in keeping with your habitual over-statement of just about everything.
do you really think that everyone is as ego-bound as you? i don't suffer your pretensions of "influence." nor do i in any way see this exchange as "battle," of ideologies or anything else. get some perspective.
all the breast-beating aside, the essence of your reply is that you disagree with my thought that directly taking on every national sponsor of terrorists might not be such a good idea. that's a legitimate disagreement, and one which i would be willing to consider, if it didn't arrive crusted over with your typical puffery.
for those who might be reading this who are not more concerned about "debate tactics" than actually trying to communicate (or even for toddster, if he wants to stop playing Master Podium), i have a related question: how do you think The Troubles in ireland actually came to a (comparitive) end? was it the exhaustion by force of the IRA? loss of sympathy among the ones they thought they were fighting for, and thus loss of purpose? negotiation? i do not mean to suggest that the siutations are the same... in the true spirit of "inquiry" (as opposed to todd's leaden speechifying), it's something that occurs to me, as i think about the question at hand.
quote
oh yes, because the present administration has demonstrated such a steadfast devotion to your privacy rights.
this is also a classic tactic that i've seen a lot among ideologues: accuse the opposition of your own failings. it's a little bit of rhetorical ju-jitsu, that would be interesting if it weren't so played.
what i'm really loving about this whole "argument" is the pretentious tone of it... all "big ideas" which are large, airy and impressive... and of course so much easier than actually taking a look at cases and consequences.
i just spent a half-hour watching pat buchanan on scarborough, and got more cogent analysis than three pages of this nonsense.
quote
parroting todd?
quote
-sigh-
polly want a biscuit?
Maybe bashing of one particular male.
quote
one of the things that was tossed around last night was some backchannel noise relating to the possiblity of direct saudi involvement in the conflict.
i wonder why, exactly? have we softened things up enough that they finally feel comfortable entering into a war which was launched at least as much, if not more, in their interests than ours? or have we bollocksed it up enough that they feel they need to take a more open hand?
in any case, it does look like things are going to heat up a bit.
since we seem to be identifying iran and syria as the primary supporting players... i wonder just what their capacity really is? a related question: are there any other shiia-majority nations from whom they might draw recruits? ... quick google... pakistan. lovely.
quote
i know that pakistan is not a "majority" shiite nation. the "quick google" i referred to revealed only populations, not percentage, and the shiite population of pakistan came out as significant. as for iran: i already mentioned them (in the same sentence as syria), as has everyone else, pretty much constantly. i was looking for other possible actors in the scenario.
so, no biscuit for you.
so if i understand this correctly, then one reason for our staying is to keep the saudis from intervening, and re-asserting sunni oppression of the shiites?
even though it's the shiites with whom we are mostly fighting, and who most certainly don't want our patronage?
-shrug-. it's in keeping, i suppose. there has been more and more chat about accomodation with al-sadr.
Negative certainly, but no general male bashing.
quote
it seems to me that the current conlict is a direct extension of the original gulf war, which was explicitly fought, in part, for saudi interests. that could be described as simply standing by an ally, but i think that's a bit simplistic, given the importance - and complexity - of our relationship with them.
And since you were a busy poster in that thread you should certainly know what she wrote in there.
Originally posted by Toddster: That would be true if I had "made it up". I didn't. If you have been reading this thread you will note she has not refuted that she was raped, only that she was raped by an uncle. I don't know who it was, nor do I care. I only know that the event has devastated her view of men. Rethink your statement.
Nick asked:
quote
"......you were raped by your uncle as a child ..." Is that a fact, Euterpe?
She said:
quote
no, nick. it's just todd's ugly little way of shifting the sexual power game.
Maybe that is a refutation that she wasn't raped. Maybe it was a refutation that it wasn't her uncle. Maybe it was a refutation that it wasn't when she was a child.
No one, including you knows exactly what she was refuting.
quote
I prefer to think of it as fighting fire with fire. In case you haven't been paying attention to the Mid East there was this little skirmish called THE WAR! Saddam had to be taken out because NO level of honest discourse was going to end his WMD program. Hence, we met him on his own terms. There is nothing new in this tactic at all. We did it for Hitler, we did if for the British, and I dare say someone did it before the US was even a dream in Jefferson's head. When confronted with a monster, you kill it, you don't try to make nice with it.
Talk about a case of overreaction.
quote
It's not an attack if I say I am sorry. Which I am. I am sorry that she was the victim of an aweful crime but taking it out on the rest of us is NOT fair. And I'll damn well point it out at every opportunity.
Bull. It is an attack when it is an attack. If I were to say, "Bob, I'm sorry that you have a small penis and have to drive a large truck very aggresively to make up for it." it is still an attack. It is just one that the attacker is too weasely to make directly and wants to hide the attack with a face claim of sympathy.
quote
Oh look! I received 6 new ratings in the last 48 hours, 2 neg, 4 pos. Hmmmm. I am obviously hitting a note with SOMEONE here.
Ah Euterpe, I see you do own a Fiero....uh, or don't...oh wait, you do...uh, sort of, but your not sure. And it might be gold...you think. And you don't actually drive it....or you do....maybe.
Thanks for clarifying that for us. Foot on the turtle please.
Steve, you seem to spend too much time writing and not enough reading. She was raped. It just wasn't her uncle. Comprendo? And the fact that she lets her passive aggressive nature go on the attack instead of confirming or denying it is the most telling of all.
She is not pissed that I outed her tragedy. She is pissed that I am RIGHT ABOUT IT!
HOW DARE I (A MERE MAN, A BRUTAL EGO MANIACAL HORMONAL SLUG) SEE THROUGH HER CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED EMOTIONAL FORTRESS AND WIN A BATTLE OF WITS. THE NERVE!
Her pride is the wounded animal here. I held up the looking glass and forced her to look into it. She can sit there and call me a bully or a ego maniac, blah blah blah. It doesn't change the facts. And neither do you.
PS, I'm basically saying what others fear to say publically. You both should read the PM's I'm getting. Everything except pom poms!
Hey, 2 more pluses!
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-21-2007).]
no. i wasn't. much as it tweaks that sorry little id of yours to continue to imagine so.
the closest i've ever been to being raped was my '92 audit. i keeed, i keeed.
quote
It doesn't change the facts.
an odd assertion, coming from someone who is thoroughly demonstrated to be a simple liar.
quote
You both should read the PM's I'm getting.
i've got a few, too, congratulating me for being willing to stand up to your relentless bullshit.
quote
Hey, 2 more pluses!
oh, yay. teacher give you a gold star, too? whatever fluffs you, kid. you really do seem to care about any trivial little ego-boost you can get.
anyway, back to basics: yellow posted something grotesque. i replied in strong words. todd, having already stated that he thinks i have nothing better to do but take swipes at him, decides that this is his opportunity to take me down.
unfortunately, not only is he explicitly defending yellow's original post, but just about everything he's brought to bear in the effort has been an outright lie (see above for steve's demo re: "all her posts are man bashing.")
most of this is just normal toddshit. but the fevered emphasis he's putting on the whole "she was raped!" thing is really pretty disgusting.
what else do you imagine, todd? got sweaty little wet dreams of me all tied up at your feet?
oh yeah... i bet you do.
edit: if i were a rape survivor, by the way, i would be a lot more pissed at todd's attempt to use it as a tool to deflect the original issue. as it is, i am merely creeped out, as i've said.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 02-21-2007).]
toddster obviously dislikes euterpe because every woman he's ever raped has rejected him in favor of other women. this has led him to believe that lesbians hate all men because theyve been sexually traumatized. in fact, they only hate him
this is the sort of psychobabble and innuendo we're dealing with here. how's it feel?
for what it's worth, i dont believe a word of it, even though i do have some credentials (BA in psych, U. of S. Florida, 1980) in the psychobabble business.
now, i dont approve of euterpe's initial response. she replied with personal attacks and language which i had thought beneath her, and am disappointed. toddster's response, however, does not surprise me in the least.
That would be true if I had "made it up". I didn't. If you have been reading this thread you will note she has not refuted that she was raped, only that she was raped by an uncle. I don't know who it was, nor do I care. I only know that the event has devastated her view of men. Rethink your statement.
Except that it is true, and you did make it up. Hunches that you pull straight out of your ass are not admissable as evidence of anything but your own preconcieved bias. Rethink your own statements, they're absolutely ludacrous.
quote
I prefer to think of it as fighting fire with fire. In case you haven't been paying attention to the Mid East there was this little skirmish called THE WAR! Saddam had to be taken out because NO level of honest discourse was going to end his WMD program. Hence, we met him on his own terms. There is nothing new in this tactic at all. We did it for Hitler, we did if for the British, and I dare say someone did it before the US was even a dream in Jefferson's head. When confronted with a monster, you kill it, you don't try to make nice with it.
None of that is in ANY way relevant to the topic at hand. Don't make me pull up my thread from a few years back when both Pres. Bush AND V.P. Cheney publically admitted that they were WRONG and Iraq DID NOT have WMDs. That subject's been beat to death, let it go.
quote
It's not an attack if I say I am sorry. Which I am. I am sorry that she was the victim of an aweful crime but taking it out on the rest of us is NOT fair. And I'll damn well point it out at every opportunity.
Oh look! I received 6 new ratings in the last 48 hours, 2 neg, 4 pos. Hmmmm. I am obviously hitting a note with SOMEONE here.
Yes, it is an attack, and you damn well know it. Being snide about it doesn't change anything. But by all means, continue to point out your little "fact" as much as you like, its a beautiful illustration of your apparant inability to fight fair, be honest, or at least not commit multiple logical fallacies in a single post.
Ah Euterpe, I see you do own a Fiero....uh, or don't...oh wait, you do...uh, sort of, but your not sure. And it might be gold...you think. And you don't actually drive it....or you do....maybe.
Thanks for clarifying that for us. Foot on the turtle please.
Steve, you seem to spend too much time writing and not enough reading. She was raped. It just wasn't her uncle. Comprendo? And the fact that she lets her passive aggressive nature go on the attack instead of confirming or denying it is the most telling of all.
She is not pissed that I outed her tragedy. She is pissed that I am RIGHT ABOUT IT!
HOW DARE I (A MERE MAN, A BRUTAL EGO MANIACAL HORMONAL SLUG) SEE THROUGH HER CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED EMOTIONAL FORTRESS AND WIN A BATTLE OF WITS. THE NERVE!
Her pride is the wounded animal here. I held up the looking glass and forced her to look into it. She can sit there and call me a bully or a ego maniac, blah blah blah. It doesn't change the facts. And neither do you.
PS, I'm basically saying what others fear to say publically. You both should read the PM's I'm getting. Everything except pom poms!
Hey, 2 more pluses!
Thats all borderline delusional. Seek help.
And anyone and everyone sending you congratulatory PMs is a spineless little b**** if they support this kind of behavior on the forum. If they'll say it in PM but not in public, theres no other explanation for it. I hereby call forth anyone who PM'd Todd to support this vile rhetoric to post grow a pair and post here. Or, remain silent and prove my point. Your choice.
[This message has been edited by Fastback 86 (edited 02-22-2007).]
1st toddster: i have a lot (well had a lot) of respect for you. i think that your posts on credit and home ownership are a real asset to the forum. i've disagreed on several of your political posts but that's opinion. why would you attack Euterpe like that? i know this is all internet BS but would you say that to a woman's face? would you really do that? i've had my disagreements with people here but why would you stoop so low as to assume you know a person's past? i'm not mad at you, just disappointed.
2nd: brought up earlier in the post, what's with all the "trailer trash" remarks? why is it ok to call white people "trailer trash" and its wrong to call blacks "porch monkeys"??? when a young black makes a mistake its because he's "from da hood", when a white does it they're "stupid trailer trash". i just disgaree with assuming just cause a person comes from a different house, different hood, or town, whatever...that you can judge them.
3rd: don't give a crap about brit. hope she becomes a good mother to her children. and, it anything good comes out of this, maybe some kids in a cancer ward will realize that balds ok!
he will make no such citation because he can't. he will of course claim that he doesn't need to... that it is "obvious" from any reading of my posts on this forum, and that anyone who can't see it just doesn't have that special wisdom he has so often claimed, waving magisterially at his extensive collection of paperweights... er, books.
it's a perfect position for an irretrievably dishonest antagonist. he can't actually defend yellow's original post... notice that he never even really refers to it. he can't sustain the fiction that i am a fulltime man-hater/basher... anyone with steve's patience can supply their own evidence to the contrary. so he stakes his already miniscule credibility on an over-reaching assumption that he knows can neither be proved nor disproved in the present context... no matter that there is literally no direct evidence for it.
he has been successful only in that he has made the thread about me, rather than about yellow's post, or even my actual response to it. well... partly successful, because it's pretty clear that no one but those alleged cheerleaders in his private message box actually buy it.
but it's a weak position, and he knows it, and he therefore has no option but to bulldog it to the limit.
as i've said before, though, what really disturbs me is what it all reveals about him, rather than me. i don't need to claim victimhood to justifiably point out that, if this is the way he treats people he really believes are rape survivors - effectively shouting it in their face and gloating over it on a public forum - he's got far larger problems than he accuses me of.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 02-22-2007).]
Originally posted by Toddster: Steve, you seem to spend too much time writing and not enough reading. She was raped. It just wasn't her uncle. Comprendo? And the fact that she lets her passive aggressive nature go on the attack instead of confirming or denying it is the most telling of all.
She wasn't. Comprendo? And she denied it earlier. And she denied it again. The fact that you won't acknowledge that is also telling.
quote
She is not pissed that I outed her tragedy. She is pissed that I am RIGHT ABOUT IT!
HOW DARE I (A MERE MAN, A BRUTAL EGO MANIACAL HORMONAL SLUG) SEE THROUGH HER CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED EMOTIONAL FORTRESS AND WIN A BATTLE OF WITS. THE NERVE!
Her pride is the wounded animal here. I held up the looking glass and forced her to look into it. She can sit there and call me a bully or a ego maniac, blah blah blah. It doesn't change the facts. And neither do you.
I'm wondering if this is the issue right here, only with the situations reversed. I believe that it is called projection. Something in Toddster's background or makeup makes him fear or hate a woman that won't kowtow to his preconcieved notions of how women should behave on this forum. When Euterpe won't genuflect to his superior manness, he has to come up with some reason why. Since it can't be that him and since other women won't stand up (maybe for fear of this type of thing), it must be her.
quote
PS, I'm basically saying what others fear to say publically. You both should read the PM's I'm getting. Everything except pom poms!
Hey, 2 more pluses!
Support doesn't always equal correctness. The guy who nailguns himself on YouTube gets a lot of people who think he's cool. Doesn't mean nailgunning yourself is a good thing.
[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 02-22-2007).]
Alright, I'm home with the flu today so I have a few moments to lay down some well constructed replies without the need to rush.
Steve, What are you trying to prove? I mean it? You list a series of threads from OT I've posted to lately for....what? What are you saying? That I am not a value to the Fiero Community because I have hung around OT lately? NEWSFLASH...WINTER IS HERE! I know that means little to you in Arizona but most of this country in under 10 feet of snow or a deluge of rain. My Fiero contributions are well documented and I have had more Fieros pass through my hands than you will EVER own. I have 6 in my driveway right now and they are all covered waiting for the time when the weather and my house remodeling in complete so I can get back to them. In the mean time, I'm dropping in here. Euterpe has posted exactly ONE post in a forum other than OT. So I ask again, what do you think you are proving? Your rating bar used to be all green. Look at it now. It would seem that the silent majority is not with you on this subject.
Sostock, sorry to disappoint you. I mean that sincerely. But I have my reasons for my comments. People quickly forget that I was the one to expose George Miller. I have 20 negative ratings from people who were "disappointed" in me for taking George to task in the infamous "Apology" thread. I had the worst, most vitriolic posts telling me to shut up and take a hike and stop bashing George, etc. Well? I get hat-in-hand emails from those same people to this day. I can't go to a club meeting without someone saying, "Jeez Todd, I owe you an apology. That guy really was a crook". Maybe you don't approve of my methods, and that is fine. We all have different ways of dealing with threats. Some people flea, I turn and attack. It's part of my character, for good or for bad.
Lurker, I must admit, I'm totally indifferent to your existence. You add little but do no harm either. I generally reserve my attentions for people with the courage of an opinion expressed. I'm gratified at least that you find me consistent. The worst insult a man can receive is that of being inconsistent. FYI, bone up on Euterpe's posts (not just in this thread) before taking sides.
Scott (fastback86), you disappoint me the most Scott. You of all people should know that I am more grounded in reality than anyone else you know. I gave you gainful employment when you were short on cash, I helped install the engine in your Fiero, I sit with you at club meetings and other social events and for you to ASSUME you know what this discussion is really about let alone call me delusional is hurtful.
An amazing thing happened today Scott. I woke up and looked out the window and as far as I could see, it was wet. That’s right, the cars, the houses, the trees, the mountains...wet wet wet! Now I may be going out on an epistemological limb here but I am going to say IT RAINED LAST NIGHT! Yep, you heard me. IT RAINED! I know that statement flies in the face of God. I know it is riddled with hubris and down right arrogance but there you have it. I do not have video tape of droplets of water falling from the sky. I do not have a signed affidavit from the National Weather Service stating that on February 23 at 3:01 to 3:57 am precipitation did fall on the southern Bay Area. I do not have an eye witness to swear that they saw the rain come down but I, none the less, have decided that my powers of interpolation and the prevailing evidence is sufficient for me to make a declarative statement that it RAINED. Not, might have rained, not probably rained, but RAINED! Go on, your honor. Throw the book at me for assuming facts not in evidence.
Euterpe was raped/molested. Not probably, not might have been. It's a fact. I don’t; care that she has either suppressed it from her memory or has outright lied about it. The water on the ground is the evidence of her universal hatred of men. The best person at my wedding Elaine was raped by her father as a little girl. She doesn't remember it. She won't even discuss it. As close as Elaine and I are the best I will get out of her is "I don't remember if it happened". She had breast reduction surgery, she has short cropped hair, wears NO make-up, you'll NEVER see her in a dress, and she is a cop for the Mountain View Police department. She is not an imposing figure either. But the fact that she has repressed this tragedy, which she, I, her life partner, and our closest friends all KNOW happened is not supported by a single thread of evidence. We don't need it. Her behavior is the proof. Euterpe was raped and here is the proof:
UNPROVOKED personal attack against cliff: oh, WAAAAAH! here. have a hanky. gee, cliff. what a brilliant political observation
UNPROVOKED personal attack against fogglethorpe:
you people crack me up.
oh look! it's a woman in power! she's screechy! she's bitchy! she's not a Hooters chick! she has an active ego, she may actually not play nice! and worst, she represents those fictitious "san francisco values"!
schadenfreude, kids. it's what's for dinner. would you like some salt with that?
UNPROVOKED personal attack against phranc:
i'm quite pleased, both at that fact and at your own discomfiture. your whining is music to me. you stand corrected. big of me, eh?
i think he's a freaking nutcase, about as democratic as a three-week-dead wolverine, and representative of nothing but unmanaged pychosis
wow... you are slow, aren't you?
UNPROVOKED personal attack against Uaana:
and here i thought this was going to be a dull, humorless day. ah, a good dose of irony in my morning tea is so invigorating.
UNPROVOKED personal attack against wichita: and unlike, oh... say, wichita, with respect to my own character... i'm perfectly willing to take your word for that. i don't think you're evil, even unintentionally.
UNPROVOKED personal attack against fierofetish: you think being homsexual is a "choice" like selecting your paint job? fine... go choose to blow a guy, and see how you feel about it.
idiot.
no one should ever apologize for being a simpleton.
i think we found the source of that blood pressure problem. ”What? Assuming facts not in evidence? I’m shocked!”
yessss.... yessss.... feeeel the hate. feeeel it flow thooooough you. excsssssselent.
sorry, darth. my emotional life is not up for "debate" as if we were discussing soy bean futures. i don't need a "sensible argument" for my own existence. you are of course free to think of me as a deviant. what i think of you in turn, is unfit for print.
UNPROVOKED personal attack against ALL MEN (wait a minute…isn’t that how my post started in this thread? ): what is it with men and their anxiety over being rendered redundant?
by the way, let me state this for those of you who aren't raving lunatics:
looking at that icon, and correlating it with the comments here, i'm getting the impression that the reason most of you don't like piercings, especially on women, is that they are insufficiently submissive to extremely narrow categories of permissible sexual display.
and for the grand finale!
most rapists are straight men. therefore, i will equate you with all rapists.
Oh, yeah, I have no idea what I am talking about. Euterpe loooooooooves men and has a great respect for them. Boo hoo on me.
Oh, and one other thing, these above tantrums are from THREE and only 3 threads. If you read all of her posts you would cringe. I tried but reading her crap is like trying to read A Clockwork Orange or an Erskine Caldwell novel; It just gave me a headache. It does not matter what side of the political isle you are on. If you have a Y Chromosome then you are in the cross-hairs. This person does a disservice to the Fiero Community, she does a disservice to lesbians, and she does a disservice to women in general. I can’t help but find it ironic that she would take the name of a daughter of Zeus and accuse ME of having a God complex. I think I would be sad if I wasn’t laughing so hard.
She accuses ANY male who disagrees with her of wanting to “dominate” her, despite the fact that there are plenty of submissive men in the world. she’s a lesbian. She openly equates all straight men with rapists (her own words), and she feels in insatiable need to intellectually assault men because she can’t do so physically. And when she runs into an intellectually equal male she becomes belligerent, dismissive, and accusatory.
The verdict is in folks. The woman HATES MEN! And we know why. Naturally she won’t admit it. Hell, my best lesbian friend won’t admit to me or her life partner of 19 years in the privacy of her own living room that she was raped and I honestly believe she doesn’t remember it. So what the Hell makes anyone think Euterpe will admit in on an internet forum?! I know its true because I see that the ground is wet! She knows its true, and shes pissed off because me knowing it to be true makes her feel vulnerable. Something she has fought her whole life NOT to feel ever again. So now I (and all other men who challenge her) are evil (as she called Stricker) or rapists, as she stated in another thread. Your entire presence in this forum is a affront Euterpe. I don’t agree with a lot of people here but we all share one thing in common, an interest in our cars and a mutal respect on THAT, if nothing else, reason alone. You don’t even know what engine is in the Fiero that you are not sure you own. So why are you here?
You wanted proof Euterpe?
You got it. Put your foot on the turtle and eat **** .
edit,, sorry to those of you trying to PM. I think the inbox is limited to 30 posts. I deleted them so you can go back to PMing. If you email me your emails are likely to end up in the spam filters clutches.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-23-2007).]
Steve, What are you trying to prove? I mean it? You list a series of threads from OT I've posted to lately for....what? What are you saying? That I am not a value to the Fiero Community because I have hung around OT lately? NEWSFLASH...WINTER IS HERE! I know that means little to you in Arizona but most of this country in under 10 feet of snow or a deluge of rain. My Fiero contributions are well documented and I have had more Fieros pass through my hands than you will EVER own. I have 6 in my driveway right now and they are all covered waiting for the time when the weather and my house remodeling in complete so I can get back to them. In the mean time, I'm dropping in here. Euterpe has posted exactly ONE post in a forum other than OT. So I ask again, what do you think you are proving? Your rating bar used to be all green. Look at it now. It would seem that the silent majority is not with you on this subject.
I'm proving that simply looking at what threads a person posts in is not indicitive of their value or status as a troll or a regular member.
Actually, it has had red for the past couple of years. I don't keep close track, so I don't know if it is redder or greener or hasn't changed. And you know what? I don't care. Unlike you I don't need others to validate my decisions and my actions.
quote
Euterpe was raped/molested. Not probably, not might have been. It's a fact. I don’t; care that she has either suppressed it from her memory or has outright lied about it.
I wasn't aware that you have an advanced degree in psychology with a focus on internet forum diagnosis.
And really, what would it matter if she was raped? If you think she is being a troll, then why does it matter if it is because she was raped, because she is a jerk, or because she is just playing a game?
Edit: And how do you know that she isn't that way with women. With a membership of probably 95% men and probably 99% active posters being men, nearly every poster is going to be a man.
[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 02-23-2007).]
Originally posted by Steve Normington: why does it matter if it is because she was raped, because she is a jerk, or because she is just playing a game?
Touche',
She may very well be just a jerk. But I have my opinion and it is based on observation, I can't dismiss that opinion just for the sake of social grace.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-23-2007).]
She may very well be just a jerk. But I have my opinion and it is based on observation, I can't dismiss that opinion just for the sake of social grace.
will wonders never cease. he finally concedes that is an opinion, rather than established fact.
oh by the way, for those who might still be following along but have a tendency to choke a bit in all the dust todd stirs up to cloud the issue:
todd thinks that what yellow posted is defensible. he is, in effect, defending it.
todd thinks that my manner of response to yellow was unwarranted.
the entirety of todd's *ahem*bullshit*analysis*ahem* is todd's attempt to justify his own conviction that the only reason a woman might legitimately be testy, cranky, or otherwise just not conformant to his expectations, is that they must be a rape survivor, and thus emotionally scarred and a man-hater.
setting aside todd's claims of a hidden cheerleading squad, i'm curious as to just how many people do buy this whole construct. far fewer than he pretends, i expect.
i have, by the way, refuted todd's basic claims more than once. note that his entire method - as usual - is to keep the focus on his pretentious assumptions with regard to me, rather than refute the actual main point, which is still that yellow's post was egregious, and my response, justifiable in itself.
it is as i said... he simply cannot back down, from what i think even he knows by now is a completely untenable position. so he must dig the heels in, claim speculation as fact, and do even more injustice to that rather unfortunate icon of his.
it just occurred to me to wonder if todd regularly jumps up and down in front of that alleged lesbian friend of his like a crazed monkey, shrieking "you're a rape victim! admit it!"
this, by the way, is an excellent example of todd's essential dishonesty, and the reason i said on the main threads that his context-sensitivity is highly selective.
as you will recall from above, he supplied this quote as the crowning example of my rape-motivated misandry:
quote
most rapists are straight men. therefore, i will equate you with all rapists.
what he knows, of course, but chooses not to take into account, is that the comment was made in direct response to nick, who said:
quote
you choose to be homosexual, a murderer, rapist, pedaphile,or to use another word, deviant
which, first, furthers the "lifesyle choice" nonsense of anti-homosexual prejudice, and second, equates my nature with that of a murderer and rapist. i was pointing out the obvious logical fallacy, in a manner calibrated to the conditions of the discussion, if we care to call it that... personally, i felt quite strongly that i was on the defense against pretty blatant (and later admitted) homophobia.
as i said, todd understands all this perfectly well. but any observation of nuance at all would demolish his entire thesis, house of cards that it actually is. so, like the unreliable agent that he is (that's a nice way of saying lying bastard, by the way), he concerns himself with context only when it advances his own agenda.
none of this bothers me much... as i've said before, it's par for the course, and i only expect todd to get worse, more recalcitrant, than ever. every lie will be only more entrenched, and supported by what he vainly hopes is a convincing bluster of manufactured certainty... certainty regarding things which he is in fact steadfastly, belligerently ignorant.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 02-23-2007).]
I thought when this section was opened I would not post in here,but I have had all I can take of the venom Toddster is spewing.To claim that anyone has been violated whether it is a man or woman,when it has been denied by the person you claim has been raped is nothing short of slander.You keep repeating that claim and asserting it is true as if to convince the people reading this junk it is.Is it your intention to repeat it until people finally start to believe it?Also since when is it a requirement that you have a Fiero to post on this forum? Not everyone has one,or didn't you know? I don't care what sexual persuasion anyone is and I will not degrade them or try to embarrass them because they may be different than me.I'm not perfect,but people like you with their bias turned up to full on make me feel good about myself !Euterpe was right in her disgust for the comments made in the post by yello86se they also disgusted me and I have a garage with only men working in it.The talk is garage talk and I wouldn't want my mother to hear the language that is used,but we don't talk like that.That kind of talk has no place on a family type forum like we have here and yet you defend it and try to turn it around with lies and deceit.Euterpe has done her share of bad talk,but not on your level.
Your rating bar used to be all green. Look at it now. It would seem that the silent majority is not with you on this subject.
I’m shocked!” 
