Mogwai has left the building...

He just up and got on his bike and left. He looks kinda tired and depressed, huh?

Listening to "Killing All the Flies". After that..."Hunted by a Freak".

The latter, thankfully, has no lyrics.

I stand corrected...

...Dougey-boy does have a soul.

He is not all nastiness and vile hate. Witness the above. Doug is sending money and soliciting more with offers of free copies of books and signed art for those pitching in with crucial relief efforts that are needed NOW.

I urge you to do just what he asks and send in a donation. You will receive a signed copy of one of his books or a Catscratch piece of art.

This is 100% legit.

~Maugam

P.S. and yes, you can request that he sign it "with love to Maugham" but I would not get your hopes up.

Response to FusionAddict

Kenny (Fusionaddict) sent a long and thoughtful response and posted it here. It is too respectful for me to deal with, so I gave it over to Mac. Let it be known that this is a discussion people. Mac will only respond to questions and actual points being made. All shamers and blamers will be turned over to me for good-natured beatings.
~Maugham
______________________________

I sincerely doubt that Doug literally meant for she and her family to be sprayed with a firehose. However, their conduct, in my opinion, has been more than disrespectful.

If you find his post he makes no bones about it. As a big fan of the late Dr. Thompson I understand the role of hyperbole. But ...well take a look for yourself. I obviously cannot speak to your personal experience of Doug. It seemed violent and cruel to me, and did not deal with any rationale.

She's a LIberal=She is stupid and bad= Hose her or gas her"

She has chosen to make her son out to be some sort of martyr, against what, by most accounts, would be his wishes. She neglects to mention that her son not only volunteered for the military, but he re-enlisted WHILE in Iraq and also volunteered to go on a rescue mission to save his fellow soldiers' lives when, as a mechanic, he had no obligation to do so.

Well her son is a hero, and brave to want to serve and re-enlist. I have close friends serving there myself. A great many of them hate this war but love their country and are willing to serve. The two are not exclusive.

One of the great tragedies of the Veitnam conflict was how soldiers were treated by those protesting the war. To protest an unjust war is a good thing, but to make men and women who serve under orders suffer in any way is just wrong. The legacy of that war, from both perspectives is ugly and painful.

Even if Cindy Sheehan's son disagreed, any American parent has the right to ask for accountability. While our President takes anothr of his many long vacations, men and women are dying with no exit strategy to get them home.

People are so eager to blame Bush for the deaths of soldiers that they overlook that, in the US, military service is all-volunteer. As a libertarian (which gets me no small amount of guff from Doug, let me tell you), my political philosophy emphasizes personal responsibility. Liberals in America are so eager to blame Bush for the deaths of soldiers that they overlook major facts, such as:

*The evidence on which Bush made his case for war was examined and endorsed not only by the Senate, but also by the previous administration. Al Gore himself, prior to Bush's election, referred to Hussein as a threat to America.

We now know this was based on falsified evidence. We all knew that Hussein was an enemy. That proves nothing. We also, many, suspected there were no WMD and that we had moved from a viable enemy who did attack us (Bin-Laden) to one who had not. Had the 9/11 attack been sponsored by Hussein that would have changed everything (note that even Liberals do not oppose the Afghan conflict).

You also know by now that Bush had, on the table, a plan and intention of attacking Iraq before 9/11. He does what he wants, and we pay the price, particularly our soldiers. Your point abt volunteerism is a good one. My friend Mike didn't like going, but he went knowing he had chosen to serve.

*The weapons of mass destruction claim was only one of 17 points that the US presented the UN. Under UN resolution 687, Hussein's manipulation of the inspections of his facilities ALONE would have resulted in military sanctions.

I remember this time well. The WMD was the lynchpin of their argument. Even as such, we do not attack every country that has such capabilities. The Bush doctrine (which his father does not endorse) is pre-emptive. Hussein did not attack us. He had no means even if he wanted.

He DID jerk the weapons inspectors around until the last period. Then he could not. I personally hold the Clinton administration highly (note that) accountible for not keeping Hussein's feet to the fire on weapons inspections through their 8 year term.

I would be interested in reviewing the other terms. I just remember Colin Powell's reaction to the report that it was "bullshit".

*When conservatives bring up the Kurds, liberals always give the standard answer..."with weapons we sold him." They leave out that US military contributions to Iraq accounted for less than 1.5% of total between 1973 and 2001. In fact, the biggest majority lies with China, the USSR, and France.

I am a Liberal. It doesn't matter that we sold them to Hussein any more than it really matters that we did business with Bin-Laden. What is relevant is what Hussein decided to do to the Jurds and what Bin-Laden decided to do to us. What happened to the Kurds was evil and Hussein is evil.

Sheehan has said, in a quote, that she wanted her son to desert from the military and make a run to Canada. She makes outrageous claims, like her ability to channel her son's spirit from heaven. Rather than memorializing her son's memory, she has tried to divert the spotlight onto herself time and time again. Might I ask why it is that Cindy Sheehan gets so much airtime, when the families of passed soldiers who SUPPORT our military actions in Iraq get none? It's not her opinion that I find upsetting, it's her media whoring. "We now have catering" indeed.

Frankly I cannot respond to this. You may be right for all I know. She may have other motives. I do know that the reason she gets as much media is because between 55 and 60 psercent of the American people are now questioning this fiasco. They want...no WE WANT Bush to be accountible for his lies, actions and the loss of life.

I have no doubt that Ms. Sheehan feels a great sense of loss, but she is also allowing herself to be a willing puppet for individuals and groups like MoveOn.org, CodePink, George Soros, Michael Moore, and Martin Sheen.

There are really good people in those groups. The smear and misnomer is that if you oppose the war and are a Liberal that you are somehow unpatriotic. That is as ridiculous as saying that Conservatives are fascists. Okay, a few are. A few Libs are off their rocker.

Michael Moore has, well done some good by opening up some real questions that need to be aired in a Democracy. On the other hand, I am a former journalist, and some of his methods and even the accuracy of some things he reports is highly questionable and sensationalistic. I'll take Mr. Moore with a pillar of salt.

MoveOn.org is an imprtant accountability group as ultra-conservatives try to circumvent long established legal and legislative processes. I would hope conservative groups would howl like crazy if some of the same tactics were used (and perhaps they have).

Morever, people like Sheen and groups like Sojourner's bring an important faith element to the mix. Yesterday I received this snippet.

Buried deep within the No Child Left Behind Act is a provision that requires public high schools to hand over students' private contact information to military recruiters. If a school does not comply, it risks losing vital federal education funds.

How do you, Kenny, as a Libertarian feel about the above?

What sticks in my craw is that people act as if we, meaning conservatives, are letting our religion act as an excuse for our political beliefs. This is not the case. I can come up with a secular, sociological argument for any challenge to my conservative beliefs. People also act as if, as a Christian, I am to be a doormat for anyone who wrongs me. I do not believe this is Biblical. When Christ told us to turn the other cheek, I do not believe he meant for us to do so in submission, but in defiance.

It's ironic, but I think that you can probably do just that. That was an earlier point I made about Social Darwinism. In a Gospel-less world, the Conservatiev agenda is logical. The powerful rule. To a certain extend Rome is a great example of this. I'm sure you have seen the Life of Brian...where they keep going on about all the Romans have done "and the aquaduct..."

But Gospel is subversive and counter-culture (Ellul and Berger). As such it always questions the dominant power structures, whether Liberal or Conservative or whatever. The Sermon on the Mount stands in defiance of both.

On turning the other cheek, I believ there IS more in thetext than normally seen. let me do some brush up.

What much of the liberal political hemisphere, especially those who consider themselves Christian, fail to realize is that there is a very real movement in the west to suppress religion in all its forms. Does it seem fair to you that children of any faith are not allowed in some schools to pray on their own? Or that children in France can be kicked out for wearing Muslim or Sikh headgear, such as turbans and scarves? Or that religious organizations in Canada can be charged with a hate crime if they criticize any minority group? It isn't just religious expression that is in danger, but freedom of speech as a whole.

I could not agree with you more.

I suppose a lot of the reason we gave so much of a backlash against anything that we perceive as dishonesty stems a lot from the fact that many of us feel that we have been lied to by, for example, the mass media. One need only look back at "Rathergate" for a very juicy example.

The media is no longer journalism. It's propaganda. It's bullshit both left and right. I quit as a journalist because I wasn;t allowed to do honest and real stories. It's all about ad revenues.

Regardless, most arguments against the war are Monday-morning quarterbacking at best, ostrich-head ignorance at worst. We are now in Iraq, and now, for good or ill, we have to succeed.

On a pragmatic level I have to kinda agree. We were lied to and theremust be accountability for that. BUT, we are there now.

I am not sure we can succeed. It was a bad plan to begin with and Rumsfeld did not send enough troops and they do not have the equipment they need. And no exit strategy.

Perfect. If you can figure out a way to succeed now would be a good time.

And when liberals say that we should simply cut and run, they fail to fully grasp what a potentially devastating blow that could mean to the region. Syria, Jordan, and Iran are restless as it is, what would happen if their next-door neighbor were to descend into an anarchic state, as the Sudan has? These nations, some of whom have long-standing feuds with each other, would cannibalize each other in a very short amount of time. Once that finishes, the survivors will turn their attention on Isreal, who may be the only ones keeping wahabist terrorism from spreading into Europe.

Again, I am a Liberal. I do not see a way. Just pulling out now would be a disaster.

People are going to hate America no matter what we do. If we had found WMDs in Iraq, we would have been blamed for letting him get them. If he had used them, we would have been blamed for the deaths of innocents, and if we had retaliated, we would have been accused of killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

I disagree. Had we found WMD we might have retained some credibility. Bush Sr. was a coalition builder, his son is a destroyer in that regard. he took the good will of the world after 9/11 and smashed it with a sledgehammer. We are the world's only superpower. That implies some responsibility and accountibilty, no?
______________________________

JJ's response and Mac's

Kenny's words are in italics, are respectful and deserve a response. Maugham promised that if he was such that he would disappear for reasons cited below. I appear in his stead. And yes, Maugham is my creation. Kenny and I just legitimately disagree on the device.
__________________________________________
Mac, I have to assume you're as sick of this as I am.

I do tire of this, but Maugham doesn't, and won't. He comes from good warrior stock and is indefatiguable. That's the beauty of having your own tireless thug around.

But me? Yeah, sure.

Now, I have not been very patient. This is true. Do I regret what I have said? Yes.

Thank you for saying so. I respect that.

Let me ask you. If someone said something negative about one of your friends, wouldn't you step up? If someone said something vile, would you not return the favor?

It's an interesting question in this dynamic. I myself, rarely would. I did take initial umbrage to Doug's remarks as being cruel. Usually I leave it to Maugham to address such stuff. I think by now you understand the dynamic. You seem a bright man, even if we do not agree.

What Doug said about you and your family, I do not agree with. But I did not appreciate your choice to make your feelings about him public. What Doug said in his blog was strictly related to politics and contained no personal attacks. You could have let bygones be bygones (since you do seem obsessed with "forgiveness") and there would have been no problem.

It's possible that in the flurry of attacks on my character, sexuality, politics, family and everything else but a whole host of people at his site that I lost some sight of which ones were from him. He did, I know, go overboard and made numerous personal attacks (outside his attacks in emails) then the piling on was quit intense (I hope you can see that we have tried not to do that here so very much...your own real answers have been respected).

We have no problem with people coming to the forum to disagree.

I disagree. Martha has proved this is not so.

What we did have a problem with was your choice to post under multiple identities and then to lie about the fact that they belonged, in fact, to you.

Yes, I understood this. And I am, admittedly still a bit ambiguous about it. I did talk openly about it though and also did ask for forgiveness and I did apologize...heartfelt.

It's not as black and white for me as it is for you. I respect that it is for you. I do. I think that is why I felt I HAD to apologize. To NOT do so, would be to negate your, and others, deep sense of offense, even though I do not totally agree.

I agreed "enough" and cared enough to apologize. Note that Martha called me on the carpet every bit as much. yet she was banned for no such offense.

When we revealed this, you attempted to spin the exposure of your alter-ego as some sort of great moral lesson. That is what we didn't appreciate. Whether your opinions differed from Doug's or not, Jon invited you to the forum in good faith.

If it was "bad faith" (as Peter Berger would define it) for me to show up as Maugham, it was not less so than for Jon to come to my site in the way he did. I was clearly baited. Even so, it does not negate your point. I have learned from this.

While some of us were already licking our chops after reading the messages on this blog, Jon did not. He did not jump into the fray until after the IP reveal and subsequent flame war. But then again, if I remember correctly, I also attempted a civil discussion with you until the truth was revealed.

I have a hard time keeping you all straight. I know that Sideache and Achoo were both quite contained and gracious (by comparison with what ranks up with the rite of Tareboleum). For the most point it was a shitstorm.

Yes, I have been rather rude to you and for that I am truly sorry. I am prepared to admit that I am in the wrong if you are prepared to do the same.

Sure. Deal. We do not need to agree on details. I can tell your offer is sincere. So was mine a few weeks back. Even so, I am twice your age and should be able to suck it up a little better. You're a good man to be able to do so now. I do respect that.

I said earlier that I was leaving and I ended up not doing so. I have to do so now because, quite literally, my health can no longer take it.

Two responses. yes, I meant to push you, becaue shaming and blaming is a bad habit to get into. But I am concerned about your health and I want you to thrive and be healthy. I will pray for your strength and I imagine Martha will too. It's just our way. You will be in our prayers dauly...especially given what I just read below.

The only excuse (which really is no excuse) that I can give for the things that I have said to you is, as tangential as it may seem, I have been under a lot of worrying stress. Specifically, I have friends and family in both Florida and Louisiana. If you have any knowledge of current events, I think that should say enough.

It does. It is not uncommon to transfer anxiety (I have done it myself) outwardly. It doesn't matter. What matters simply, is that your family and friends are in danger. That is what matters. You will be in our thoughts and prayers.

If it's any consolation, and I doubt it is, you're not the only one who has felt my wrath in the past 2 weeks or so.

If it makes you feel any better, when I was 26 I was a fricken attack dog. I headed up an apologetics ministry and routinely evicerated my opponents.

I was sincere. But it was not done in love, or was done in misguided love at best.

I meant well. I really did.

Hey Bro...how do you think I know all yer guy's tricks?

We made kneejerk assessments of your character in regards to your political beliefs, but if you read over your first letter to Doug, you do the same thing.

I did. I do, however, feel mine were based more on reason...like not gassing people with DDT or hosing them down. His assumptions of me were unfounded. I would NEVER advocate the same for a conservative. No...respect, not violence. I sometimes votes for conservatives. I did not appreciate being smeared.

Take a look at it from his perspective. If a right-winger had sent you the same letter, with the political spectrums reversed, how would you have reacted?

Regardless, if you are genuinely sorry for your conduct on our board, then I am ready to apologize for mine on your blog.

Done.

GO take care of your family and your health. Keep us posted (I am DEAD serious). I think I know Martha enough (we have never met) to know she will pray for you and your family Kenny. Keep in touch. Peace.

The Vile Beast

The Vile Beast.

Now, I have to respond to JJ's comments quickly, then you must simply MUST go to Harleywriter's Blog and checkout three stories. They will make you HOWL!

They all revolved around The Vile Beast, pictured above. But as I was looking for suitible art for JJ I saw that look in the VB's eyes and...well it just kinda worked for me.

Read the two links at the beginning first. The one about the Squirrels will slay you. But read them in order, with the top one being last (the ducks).

_____________________________________

There's a difference between what Kierkegaard did and your own actions, in they Kierkegaard did not participate in correspondence with critics as his pseudonym. Neither did Stephen King as Richard Bachman.

I am not sure this is accurate. I have contacted a Kierkegaardian scholar and will get clarity on this. Now JJ, answer a question for once: What books by Kierkegaard have you actually read?

You, however, are convinced not only of your own existence, but also of his perceived moral authority.

I exist only to serve Mac and am completely contingint on his existence for mine. I have no moral authority whatsoever, which is kinda the point. Yer about as smart as a bag full of hammers.

Let me ask you...Doug blogged ONCE on an email that you sent him, and refuted your arguments as nothing more than barking moonbat rhetoric (which they WERE...Karl Rove? PLEASE). YOU, however, have been bitching about Doug for a week on end now. So, who is and is not guilty of "character assassination"? Doug attacked your politics, not you. You attacked Doug's character, then misrepresented yourself when asked to defend your actions.

It is true that Doug's attacks on me were miniscule, but then I posted maybe once or twice at best (3? maybe). His blistering personal attacks were all leveled at Mac, could fill a small book, and included some of the vilest things I have ever seen in print.

They even (blushing) exceed my own vileness, which is really hard to do. I feel like, for Doug, despite my mirroring his own actions, it must have been "dimly," to him given his rage.

[I'll let Martha answer for herself. She is a true Christian and a better person than I want to be.- Maugham's note]

Quite frankly, I am bored with your incessant conspiracy theorist asshattery (BOTH of you).

I personally have seen no evidence for any conspiracy...a "Confederacy of Dunces"? Yes. Ignatius would be a perfect Asshat for you JJ. Let "the valve" fly!

Yes, we're mean. Yes, we're unapologetic.

Okay, now Martha, you can no longer say that he always lies.

You're already a story to laugh at over beers next Comic-Con.

Yes, where all grown, spiritually-mature men who have no idea how to please a woman, or form a rational string of thought, ritually congregate and talk incessantly about the latest Todd McFarlane toys and get lots of pictures of themselves with celebrities like Tim Thomerson who dig the epic film "Cherry 2000".

Beyond that, you're nothing than an attention-seeking, histrionic little prick,

"histrionic"- good word. "little prick" - this sounds like definite projection.

and from this point forward, you will be treated as such. This will be my last correspondence with you or Martha (who is slowly but surely earning herself a MAC address ban). If you insist on your continuing crusade against the EEEEVIL Doug TenNapel, go right ahead.

I do not think Doug is EEEEVIL. He does.

How does it feel to be a stereotype?

I dunno. I was just settling into being a fictional character!

The Beatings continue part 4...the Finale

Even a cursory places of Golding's Lord of the Flies as an overlay reveals Doug Tennapel as the character of "Jack". He is the leader and minions like FusionAddict, aka Javajerk, aka Rand, are much like "Roger". Savage and irrational.

They have banned anyone who dissents or questions them from their "Island" after their own shaming and blaming proved to be an ineffective means of control.

This is mob mentality, pure and simple.

Anyway, after dissent, it is best to leave them to their own devices to devour one another.

"Jack"'s own brand of "Christianity" is dangeous. It is nationalistic and promotes violence and war. In one email, he said that he "loved war" and being judgmental.

As with all Fundamentalism, this has two do with two key issues: Fear and Control. These inevitably lead to violence. It is not a suprise that many in the current administration use these very same tactics to justify any action. "The ends justify the means." We have seen this before and it is insane.

Brief Interlude from Chris Rock

Was listening to Yahoo radio and Chris Rock's Black Poet comes on.

Two agents are interogating him and they bring in a Tiger to bite him, use a chainsaw on him and all he does is spit in their face.

Then they bring in the "Black Poet".

"Aw damn! You "Muthafuckas is MEAN!" he screams as the poet recites his drivel.

Well these MoFo's we been dealing with "is mean". No doubt.

From Kierkegaard to Chris Rock and Back. Where can you get such entertainment?

WCJ. I may even do something on Walker Percy Later.

Meet Johannes Climacus

AKA...Soren Kierkegaard.
__________________________

Martha brings up a good point about both Christendom and also pseudonyms.

Kierkegaard's most famous fictitious character was Johannes Climacus, who published several works, some of which were his most famous.

Climacus was not a believer, but rather a skeptic like myself and was used as a literary devise for Kierkegaard's more comical works. In the words of Climacus "where there is life there is contrdiction, where their is contradiction the comic is present."

More in a bit.

Lord of the Flies Part Three...or the Usual Suspects

Gosh, you can almost see their little name tags, huh?
_______________________________________

The Crimes and the Beatings

Their crimes are manifold, like a 67 Chevy going off a clif on fire. There is not much can be done they do not do to themselves.

Still.

With Mac they attacked his sexuality, accusing him of being gay on many occasions, a pussy, and used a pedophile metaphor.

They attacked his spirituality.

These are the usual things on a theological blog.

They accused him of upwards near six-plus online personalities stretching from California (where the water makes you vote blue...yet is strangely Republican) to Boston (which apparently is just as bad).

They attacked the memory of his dead brother and even questioned his existence. They attacked his childen and implied that they were impaired or deranged.

They waded through countless Blog entries to try and find the most vulnerable and personal ones they could, then published them again with derisive remarks meant to be cutting and cruel.

They would accept no apologies even though Mac was honest enough to tender them on a few occasions.

They used every epitaph they could find: gay, queer, pinko, fag, moron, idiot, pussy, coward, ass, asshat, marxist, wierdo, sicko, psycho, douche bag, ...this is a small sample...you get the idea.

They publish this shit everyday, but you cannot say "shit" on their site.

This is an Internet mob.

They are on their own lsland of Flies and they have a Lord and it ain't Jesus because Jesus doesn't hate. He never called anyone a douche bag, pussy, psycho, sicko, wierdo, marxist, fag or pinko, etc (add fifty other slanders). He never attacked the memory of the dead, nor did he ever attack peopel on a personal level or slander them.

The only folk he ever shamed or blamed were the overtly Religious. He was a friend of sinners and welcome in their homes.
_______________________
The Beatings...next...

Lord of the Flies Part Two

I finished post one and decided to check in with the forum at Tenwhatshisname.com.

Banned. It's an IP ban so Mac is also banned and I guess everyone else in this building. No loss.

Just note that I predicted this awhile back. If you hang in and are not intimidated, they fold. Utterly.

They use excuses..."I'm too busy...I'm bored" (hours after saying they found it entertaining), "I'm too rich and famous"..."you are not being 'rational'" when all you have done is that while they go "neener neener neener" and accuse of the most horrible filth and atrocities.

I have not deleted one of their posts, no matter how duplicitous or vile. Mac won't divulge the emails from Doug. He just says they were "often insulting and a smear".

Doug posted private emails and then allowed the banning to silence other opinions.

God bless America in Doug's mind!

But...well, banned...and not even in Boston!

Such courage! Free speech!!
__________________

next...the crimes and then the beatings...

Lord of the Flies Part One

Several people I know have looked at the over 270 posts about , well, basically me at Doug Tenpanel's site. I thought "gang" was a good word, but I was corrected. "Mob" was the word that rang true.

Mob mentality is a curious thing. A group of folk break off from any type of civility and their internal demons begin to emerge in the most savage of ways, even among themselves, but most forcefully with anyone who enters from outside.

I was thinking about Doug and his, probably best known character, Earthworm Jim. Pretty entertaining and well-drawn.

But peak behind the veneer that is Tenpanel.com and it looks more like piles of shit with earthworms crawling out. I say this with the exception of one Sideache character, who seems to possess a brain and some sense. Occasional Achoo exhibits some level as well.

Rand and Javajerk are simply rabid dogs...or rabid Flies in this case. They attack Mac because he uses a fictitious character to voice a contrary opinion, yet they do the same without shame.

Yes, Doug TenNapel (I can never get his name right...what's the etymology of that name?) is the Lord of the Flies incarnate.

His savagery and his promotion of it to his minions is obvious to anyone who visits (and please do...the level of shaming, blaming and paranoia is very reflective of Golding's book).

As I predicted days ago...well, here it is again:

1. He will answer no direct question with anything remotely like an answer or rational.
2. He will claim to be rational, without presenting any evidence.
3. He will shame and blame on any issue he can. If he finds a swear word here he will mark it while he pumps out the vilest hate-filled filth on his own site (and swears).
4. He will resort to stereotypes that are antiquated at best.
5. He will resort to labeling rather than presenting any logical case
6. He will beg off saying he has "no time" when he is confronted and engaged on the above.

This is what Fundies do. All of these things have transpired just as I foresaw. Every one of them. I can document it if you like, but I doubt even deranged Doug can prove otherwise once he reviews his various responses.

Let me say this, Doug is NOT a dishonest man. He really believes all of his own bullshit...every bit and he is very consistent. He does not lie. The worst you can say is he avoids...but even that in moderation.

Still, I do see him as the new Lord of the Flies. Just as in Goldings book, not all the characters are utterly "sold out" to his view...or not yet. But overall their is a savagery that is palpable. It is a mob and the group at Doug's site is a mob.

There chief weapon is shaming folk. It is emotional and it is meant to inflame and intimidate.

The answer to this is simple. Do not shrink back in the least. Eventually they will find an excuse to ban or silence you, even if you have been five times as civil, reasonable and respectful as they have been.

It's a mob.

The mob cannot handle truth or dissent outside the limited issues they have already agreed to disagree on. Anything outside that will be severely stomped...if you let it be.

Don't.

Dissent. Reject all blaming (except for any real transgression) and hold the line. Oherwise these Shamers will take over the Island and there will be hell to pay for everyone. You will end up like Piggy, at the bottom of the ravine and the conch shell broken.

They want violence. Doug wrote Mac and told him he "loved war".

That's what we will deal with in part two...

Anti-Fundie De-Spamminator!!

Monica Bellucci, guaranteed to scare off rabid Fundies who have never been with a woman.*

See, they can be mean little nasty cusses, but so long as they don't swear (outright...one recently sent me a Bible verse about a woman squeezing a man's testicles...whoa) or have anything to do with sex they feel self-righteous (like most rabid Right-wing nut-jobs they don't do sex scandals...there lust is to simply kill people, rape the environment and hoard all the cash they can find.)

And they come here to try and blame and shame. Rove-like-schwing!

Well my little babies...feast your eyes on a real woman and run away now.
__________________________

* unfortunately in lab tests we found that 45% of them will actually bookmark this page and then do a Google for more Monica images. It's sad. The lab rats did the same with Minnie Mouse. 35% of those have a secret stash of porn that no one knows about (except God).

But we got rid of 55% of the Fundies!

The Beatings will continue

Javajerk posted this here two days ago, bascially inviting me to come and trash someone he thought was a minor threat.

Looking for a fight, right?

Well I did and now look at his responses yesterday!

Of course we cannot go to Javajerk's website or Blog because he doesn't have one.

Yet he calls me ...oh bad things.

Who is two-faced?

Shame on you Javajerkoff!

...and Jesus never stops throwing up.

The beatings continue part 3

I just received notice from mac about recent emails from Doug PenaDeniNapoleonFrightNight.

Mac is depressed.

I told him it was futile to try and converse with this strutting Ass, but he never listens to me.

Wuss.

This is why I object to Christianity. They are all little Constantines. They want worldly power, fame, riches AND spiritual superiority over everyone else at the same time. They are Caesar, Pilate, Herod and Caiaphas all in a Jesus wrapper.

It makes me sick.

So Mac, who will still not send me the emails, did indicate that the maniacal turd wrote him and tried to shame him (note my earlier posts) about his own dead brother and the dead brother of a close friend.

This is where the Good Doctor's term "Generation of Swine" comes into play.

The beatings will continue until Mac's morale improves. I expect it to be awhile.

Let the Beatings Continue!

The Ruler of all that is true and good in America
_____________________________

This utter newbie who was born probably after the Vietnam conflict was over and has never served in the armed forces (just like his hero Dubya) has the utter audacity to write the following:

Our previous wars were won with tanks, but those tanks only had the staying power provided by the moral will of Americans back home. We didn't lose Viet Nam because it was a ground war, we lost it because we gave up. We lost the will to fight.

First of all, Napoleoan Assomite, we did not use tanks primarily in Vietnam. We used airpower.

We had no good reason to be there and it was, but the way, Liberal Democrats who landed us there. We lost the "moral will" because it was an immoral war. We were never attacked and the majority of the populace of this democracy saw that and protested the loss of innocent American lives and the destruction of a whole country.

Of course, you would just gas them or turn hoses on them in the true spirit of American freedom. What a Patriot!

The difference in this current conflict is that the tragedy of blaming soldiers for an immoral war is not being repeated.

The soldiers of Vietnam were treated horribly on their return. The accountability for the gross errors in judgement by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and the Pentagon fell on them.

Shameful and wrong.

We are not repeating that mistake. Our soldiers are heros and often martyrs for your political agenda as you sit snug in Hollywood.

If you see Vietnam as a lack of "moral will" then you will support this war to the ends of the earth.

Blood on your hands and all who support it.

It's the "Pax Americana" and the answer is the same here as it was in Rome.
_________________

Pop Quiz for the day....ask Doug a rational question and see if he answers or shames you, or just breaks off communication when asked?

Tomorrow...more fun with Missing Link Doug!
_________________

The Royal TedNapoleon

TenPanel, NapalTen, Tennebaum, Napoleon...there...This is what TedNapoleon understands..power and the finger that possesses it.

There he sits secure railing against the idolatry of the very hands that feed him. He creates idols..characters that feed himself and become brands...idols.

And he smears all opponents who questions his myopic political views without the slightest vestige of reason, fact or rationality.

Then he hides behind the veil of rationality and truth and faith like a coward.

Well he wrote Mac earlier, who was writing him back and predicting he would break off any meaningful dialogue. It happened while Mac was writing.

But TedNapoleon agreed to engage me.

Yeah..That'll last a few days at best.

Ass.

Cowardice and the inability to form a rational statement is very embarrassing. I gave James White good odds at 2 weeks (he and his minions caved in less than a week); I give DoogeyNapoleon four days max.

Here, dear readers, is what you want to watch for. Pay attention.

1. He will answer no direct question with anything remotely like an answer or rational.
2. He will claim to be rational, without presenting any evidence.
3. He will shame and blame on any issue he can. If he finds a swear word here he will mark it while he pumps out the vilest hate-filled filth on his own site (and swears).
4. He will resort to sterotypes that are antiquated at best.
5. He will resort to labeling rather than presenting any logical case
6. He will beg off saying he has "no time" when he is confronted and engaged on the above.

That's it. It's pretty simple. Doogey is pretty simple.

Oh, and rather than answer any question, he will, Rove-like, just attack my character...which I invite. The "best defense is a good offense"? We'll see.

Gawd I love this part. He's got nowhere to go but down.

Maug.

Oh ...and he knows nothing about Mr. Cash.

Let the Beatings Begin!

I was just sent this file by Mac.

Doug TenNapel, despite his artistic talent is an intellectual and emotional version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.

Having reviewed, it is obvious that his sole tactic is dead rhetoric to an audience that already agrees with his every seizure, however utterly Re-Gresso-Publican it is. Worse, he is a rabid born-again type who thinks that Jesus salutes the American flag, loves war and seems fine with the fact that his own children will grow up hating him because he "did the right thing" by spanking them.

Don't confuse Mr. T with any facts. He doesn't care or answer any question with anything but barking like a doggie or throwing shit like a monkey on acid.

I am cracking up because he labeled Mac a "Flaming Lefty Christian".

I wish.

I have never gotten Mac's Christianity. It seems lame and stupid and far too optimistic. As for "lefty" this guy bats right...and "flaming" is just plain stupid. I figure that is a smear on his sexuality, which, to his own demise is far too hetero.

I did some quick fact-checking (this guy is not worth more than 15 minutes) and he's a cartoonist of some sort.

That fits perfect.

Cartoon world-view.

Stay tuned for more. Idiots like this have a way of imploding on a regular basis because they are based in anger and that is all they know.

Thanks Mac...you handed me another live one. Could you make the next one smarter?