Just when I thought I’d seen everything.
There is something incredibly unwholesome about these two girls. Don’t let the cute smiley Hitler-tees and braces fool you.
This is Prussian Blue.
“Charming and loving sisters – white nationalist folk singers.
Bleeck!
…Just can’t get passed that it’s ~you~ in arrears, can you bunky? Just like any other hubristically smothered mook with an ISP who thinks the world should readily readily acknowledge their erstwhile *contribution* if not the crystal clarity of their flawed logic and porcine rhetoric…
You should recognize the “utter crap” for what it is, poots, your own shtick with more competent flitty-wa-doos and whiffer-dills pushed down through that ~tiny~ little horn you thought you were tooting so expressively… …suddenly turned into a funnel.
Unpleasant… …isn’t it… now you know what others endure from you.
Oh — We both know why you keep your little OE *ball* rolling… …don’t we skippy. It was here you thought you could be something that you are most likely _not_ in real life… …am I right? I’m right. It remains, OE has no purpose but the inflation of ~your~ tedious little ego, and that would be OK… …but you’ve made folks pay too much for the privilege of your attention.
…Time to give back, poots.
The irony is that you could have had it your way… been improved… truly “expanderated”… but no… you sought the baby’s wading pool and thought you had the Johnson to smirk and sneer and ridicule your *intellectual inferiors*… …make fun of the woo-woos, prop up your mangy homocentric faith and feel vastly superior all at the same time.
…A little more difficult than you had surmised? A tad? I’m surprised you’ve lasted this long… sincerely.
Mask? HOT flash pookers! We have history! Years of it…
The mask has ALWAYS been *off*. There has never ~been~ a mask… If you were half the man you ~pretend~ to be you’d admit that straight up. …though there’s nobody over here holding their breath for that. I pride myself on my consistency, you know. Additionally, I don’t take crap from portentous nymrods, don’t turn the other cheek, and give at least as good as I get.
In your case… better, and that’s no brag. “Effortless” — like you say.
Whatever — this is the reality you provoked, and I hope you’re having a ~hell~ of a good time… …for a long time…
…”Probably for a very long time.” Your call.
Oh — and that’s Mr. Lehmberg, skipper.
alienview@adelphia.net
www.AlienView.net
AVG Blog — http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
“What is astonishing in the realm of science is the opposite of what is astonishing in the art of the conjurer. For the latter wants to persuade us to see a very simple causality. Where in truth a very complicated causality is at work. Science on the contrary, compels us to abandon belief in simple causalities precisely where everything seems so easy to comprehend and we are fools of appearance. The “simplest” things are very complicated, a fact at which one can never cease to marvel.
–Friedrich Nietzsche.
I don’t always agree with Nietzsche but this one seems to be an astute observation of the boundary layer between many paranormal advocates, and those who keep an open mind on the subject.
It’s also spot-on regarding some types who examine the Empire of the Odd web page and the Odd Emperor.
Sometimes; while I edit the Odd Empire I run across the singular individual. He or she is utterly convinced that the Odd Emperor is personally out to get them. That the Odd Empire web page and to some extent this weblog is an attempt to go after specific people, to systematically defame and destroy them in the UFO biz or to a lesser extent, the fields of the paranormal.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Two individuals in particular have come up recently.One ; Alfred Lehmberg of Alien Views and R. Lee who writes the UFO Bits weblog and manages the Origon Fortunia Page, THE PUMPKIN ORANGE ORB or whatever she’s calling it this week. I wrote some frank critiques on both their pages. In R. Le’s case I got sucked into a self-serving moderated inverted trolling newsgroup; bizarrely run by Ms. Lee herself.
Both of these people react to the Odd Empire in a similar fashion. Lehmberg recently said to me “aren’t you an officious little popinjay with a freepers sensibility who wouldn’t remotely _have_ (that-which- could-be-described-as) a function… but for the persons you chase around busily to ineffectively mock?
He was being nice here. Al gets pretty funny when he gets wound up.
Now on one hand the Odd Emperor is not really vulnerable to such slights although one of these was an implication by Ms Lee that the Odd Emperor is a rapist. Even the implication of such a thing seems very irresponsible. I think my concept of what is and is not libel is pretty well developed but, really!
This of course leads to the conundrum regarding the use of a nome de plume, (I.E. The Odd Emperor.) The use of a pen name is a conscious choice which I won’t go into here. However one of the consequences of that choice is, I cannot react to public jibes as if they were directed at a specific person.
To the credit of Mrs R. Lee she did pull the statements after being remanded how serious such accusations are. (BTW, from experiences in publishing I think it’s usually a good idea to *retract* misstatements of that sort, not simply pretend they did not happen.)
The fact that she’s probably still making such remarks privately is a little troubling but, only a little. The statements, while libelous are not really directed at the writers of the Odd Empire, simply at a cartoon character called the Odd Emperor.
Or are they?
Now, I don’t really resent some of these people for speaking in this manner. The Odd Empire is a critical and satirical review page which is hosted simply for the amusement of its editors and readers. The fact that a few people (a very few people BTW) seem incensed enough to try an defame the Odd Emperor is rather astounding. It seems to me that when a person is so upset that their only expression is a mass of incoherent insult (read here – much of Mr. Lehmberg’s response to even a mild challenge.) it’s suggestive that they might have of a singular lack of cohesive thought in the first place.
It does suggest that, not only is the Odd Empire on to something. It’s sugestive that the the Empire of the Odd is probably an effective tool. A tool for what is an open question but, I have noted that a number of people have abruptly pulled “questionable” material off of their pages after being publicly called on it by the Odd Emperor.
Coincidence?
Not effective?
Perhaps *very* effective.
On the other hand the Odd Empire web page is not an attempt to defame anyone. It is a platform whereby certain opinions can be placed into the public purvey, as a public service.
Or it’s just a stupid rant page, take your pick.
Some have said that this is nothing but reflexive-skepti-bunkerisom or some other colorful made-up term. That’s fine, keep thinking that. The people who habitually make irresponsible statements all over the Internet have a reason to be upset at the Odd Empire. Those who cannot look beyond their own petty “cants” will continue to get upset at the Empire of the Odd. They will quickly resort to all manner of logical fallacies to “defend themselves from the Odd Emperor’s attacks.”
Because that’s all they have.
One thing that I find ironic? The two people that have been the most nasty have also, very recently (and simultaneously) said “It’s not my fault UFOlogy is a circus! ” It’s not me! It’s those…..those other people. Don’t blame me for the chaos in the UFO field, it’s those Dr. Evil skeptics!
They are the culprits!”
That kind of responsibility shedding warms my dark little heart! It proves my point far better than I could.
When one is part of any system, it’s important to remember that one *is* part of the system. In reality, it’s everyone’s fault. It’s not the skeptics, it’s not the believers, it’s not people like my pal Lehmberg or Ms Lee.
It’s not just my fault.
UFOology is a circus because it’s been allowed to get that way. It’s been allowed to get that way by anyone who’s bothered to participate. As I said in a previous post, the clowns have taken the center ring like it or not.
Conflicts in UFOlogy are inevitable because of the unstable, illogical nature of the subject. A subject which attracts some very good people but it also attracts people who are quite frankly, a bit out there. The “out-theres” seem to have very radical ideas which they defend with a spectacular fervor.
In this they perform exactly to type. It’s funny that the two that I mention and a couple of others have never successfully debated the Odd Emperor. They try but they simply do not have a logical tool set. They get more and more angry, then they hang up.
I’ve seen them go at it with dozens of people and they’ve always come out of the process and even more embittered and anguished while people like the Odd Emperor come out of the conflicts stronger, more determined.
It’s no wonder that people like Lee and Lehmberg go silent when they are challenged. All they can seem to do is rattle the bars of their cages, bars of illogic and disgust that they have forged with their own words.
Just as a personal note; I get quite a bit of mail at the Odd Empire, much of it very positive. Some is critical and some–downright bizarre. I republish some of the bizarre ones because I don’t believe email can ever be completely private. I welcome comments positive or negative and don’t really have a problem with either.
In this I differ, with almost everyone who’s ever had a problem with the Odd Empire.
So what’s my real problem?
What the hell does the word “freepers”? mean?
You correctly pointed out that my weblog’s been locked for the last few weeks,… well; mostly correctly. I turned off open comments because of a sudden high volume of spam that I had to wade through. Anyone can comment if they register (this is free BTW.)
However I have just turned open commenting back on, I’ve “unlocked� my blog Alfred.
Cognitive Dissonance;
I keep running across this term over in King Alfred’s various writings.
When I do, this quote from The Princess Bride comes to mind…“
You keep using that word — I do not think it means what you think it means.â€?
According to King Alfred (If I’m reading him right.) People who do not accept his world-view are automatically cognitively dissonant. You know; the world where aliens are running around rudely giving people involuntary colonoscopies and cutting up cows in the middle of the night. The reality where there is SO much evidence of the ETH that only a complete moron would fail to believe just like King Al does.
You know! That one!
Cognitive Dissonance is more like George Orwell’s concept of doublethink. The ability to hold two or more conflicting ideas but compartmentalize them so that they do not overtly conflict with one’s thinking. A person who is cognately dissonant will self-filter information (as in not reading conflicting papers or writings) and/or they will actively lie to themselves thus reducing their internal conflict.
This is a very good rendering of the idea.
An example used by Festinger (1957) may assist in elucidating the theory. A habitual smoker who learns that smoking is bad for health will experience dissonance, because the knowledge that smoking is bad for health is dissonant with the cognition that he continues to smoke. He can reduce the dissonance by changing his behavior, that is, he could stop smoking, which would be consonant with the cognition that smoking is bad for health. Alternatively, the smoker could reduce dissonance by changing his cognition about the effect of smoking on health and believe that smoking does not have a harmful effect on health (eliminating the dissonant cognition). He might look for positive effects of smoking and believe that smoking reduces tension and keeps him from gaining weight (adding consonant cognitions). Or he might believe that the risk to health from smoking is negligible compared with the danger of automobile accidents (reducing the importance of the dissonant cognition). In addition, he might consider the enjoyment he gets from smoking to be a very important part of his life (increasing the importance of consonant cognitions).
So, in UFOlogy, people who habitually lie to themselves and others, people who refuse to read stuff that might go against their ideas, people who constantly and systematically distort information so that good-facts happen to correspond with their local beliefs. People who (for example) make up their own private lexicons (thus helping them distort that truth.) People who (for example) ignore the overwhelming *lack* of hard evidence for the ETH ….are being cognitively dissonant!
That’s pretty cool! I like it!
Couple of funny articles from that other skeptic some of you wackos love to hate!
Jersey devil folklore delivers entertainment, little else.
Creationism thought deconstructed with air conditioners.
Enjoy (or not!)
It’s called FLOWERS FOR ALGER-EMPIE.
This of course is a play on the title of a story. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes. It was a short story that was turned into a novel back in the 1960s. About a mentally disabled named Charley who was given a serum which artificially makes him into a genius. Algernon was a mouse that, after being subject to the experiment also gained exceptional intelligence. Than, to the horror of Charley the mouse slowly slipped back to normalcy and died. Charley begins to watch his own slow slip back into retardation, knowing that he will also die soon.
The story works on several levels. It’s a relatively straight science fiction tale but it (like any good story) makes commentary on the human condition.
It’s wonderful. One of my favorites, a classic. Won the Hugo and Nebula awards.
Alfred’s poem not exactly a classic. No; it’s not classic at all.
I like this passage the best;
You want to have a ‘public’ hearing (“…I’ll be your huckleberry, dearie…”)? Say my name with disrespect and I’ll presume you lack respect. …And take it, then, upon myself to show you where you wrong yourself.
…Form a posse, or a guild… light a torchy lynch-mob, Phil! Gather *friends* around our *town* and humble me… please, bring me down! I can’t pay for better feedback! While, your victory couldn’t be more pyrrhic. It’s you and yours without a sack… it’s you and yours who fade to black… it’s you and yours who’s bringing knives (I wrote before) to gunfights, Clyde!
King Alfred; if I say your name in disrespect you can be sure there is a good reason. Because King Alfred, I only know you from the good words you write.
If you think threats are going to somehow change, me make me validate you, get me to stroke your ego or (what you really want,) make me silent in shame. I think you should closely examine what you want–and what you are likely to get.
I don’t lack respect deaire, I simple have little respect for you. Less and less all the time.
I will not threaten you Alfred, it’s not my style. I’m not forming a posse, you are. Crafted with words it forms itself. If you come after me sir, I shall know you. If you do not; I shall know your worth.
There is a third way, one that will earn my respect but I can’t tell you what it is, not here – not now.
So bring your weapons Alfred, bring your big guns, your prose, your razor whit. Have at me! Jeer at me! Mock me! Make me squirm. Have your revenge Alfred; get the bad guy. Destroy the evil in the world. All I have is what I have King Alfred. But with my poor tools–exegi monumentum aere perennius.
But, sir, as someone once told me. “when he points -one- finger of ignorant accusation, he invariably points -three- back at himself. I think those words are correct.
Don’t you?
Be seeing you Alfred.
Behold!
I give you the end of the Information Age and the beginning of–
The Age of Indexing!
Snarked from Matt Tonnies’s blog
All human life is indexed on the web
Search engines are changing the face of business forever
Some definitions
Skeptic;
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
Cynic;
A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.
Debunker;
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/)
People have called me a cynic. I am scornful of some people. Does that make me a cynic? Sometimes; I might not validate you, I won’t agree with you, unless you say something that I can agree with. When you don’t I don’t.
Is that cynical?
Am I a debunker? No doubt.
Mac Tonnies wrote a definition of a debunker that I quite like.
Debunkers comprise the most virulent of contemporary self-described “skeptics? There is nothing inherently unsound about debunking, contrary to the many appeals on behalf of the side of any given paranormal controversy. But in order to debunk, the subject being debunked must be bunk. Valid, substantiated evidence cannot be debunked until new evidence supplants or alters it.
This is certainly true. Debunking is simply finding the truth from the bunk. Finding the truth that something is bunk.
Is that a bad thing? Not in that light.
When I debunk something, I have a reason. I don’t just do it because I dislike you. I might pay more attention to your web page if I dislike you. If you flame me I’m probably going to flame you back. If you deal with me in a reasonable manner, ‘m likely to be very reasonable. There is evidence to support this.
Am I a skeptic?
Certainly. It’s self evident.
Am I unreasonable?
I am about some things. I’m unreasonable about liars and I intensely dislike bullies.
Is that unreasonable?
Only if you are a liar and a bully. You may find me very unreasonable.
However; here is the crux of the issue;
I question myself–lots more than most people. Probubly more than you question yourself.
I look in the mirror and ask, “Is this right? Is that fair?? Are you right? Are you being fair? I ask myself these questions daily.
Do you do that?
My detractors never ask those questions. At least, they never seem to based on the letters they send me. Too intent on blaming others they must not have time for self reflection. To intent on saying I’ts not my fault, it’s THEM that caused it.! They apparently have few recursive thoughts, they don’t self reflect. There is evidence to support this.
They take no responsibility for the place they are or the people they have become.
I pity them. They seem to have little to say. They must find expression difficult.
They sound like children.
