Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
First, not every single officer in Scotland Yard was involved.
Red herring.
You wouldn't know a herring from a trout.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
That means that there are honest cops who will clean up the mess, among who are probably a few looking to move up into the jobs vacated by those shamed out of their positions by this scandal.
If things worked that way we would live in a much better world.
I agree in principle, of course, but as you and I would agree, courage is in short supply lately.
It has nothing to do with 'courage.' The biggest motivator is going to be shameless self-promotion.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
Again, this is leaving aside the fact that people can't shut their mouth and keep a secret, not that it matters now, because the cat is out of the bag...not that any of this was a well-kept secret anyway:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36770.html The hacking has been going on since at least 1999, and it involves more tabloids than News of the World...but no one is really interested since none of the other rags belong to Rupert Murdoch.
Curious how another op-ed piece and not a news article pleads Murdoch's case.
News articles aren't supposed to 'plead' a case, so it would have to be an op-ed piece, now wouldn't Dr. Kaczynski?
Aestu wrote:
And it's under false pretenses. The police weren't the victims; they were the perpetrators. The article makes a wide variety of claims and allegations but there is no cogent point except that Murdoch should be let off the hook.
So now begins the twists in logic that you do so you can dance your way to feeling like you're still right when you're obviously wrong...which we're all so accustomed to now that it's no longer even entertaining. Not only does that article
not attempt in any way to paint the police as 'victims' (making this whole line of 'false pretense' bullshit pointless), but the general point of the article was that this scandal would not have been so large had police and other officials pursued these matters when they first arose instead of waiting for a public outrage to do something about it.
Aestu wrote:
The op-ed piece is also a blatant strawman because the comparisons it makes doesn't cover the full extent of the illegality in question.
I'm not even entirely sure that sentence makes any sense, but even if it does, how would you propose someone fit the "full extent of the illegality in question" in a handful of paragraphs that isn't even really about the illegalities, but about the failure of government officials to deal with them leading to the current situation? I fail to understand how an alleged genius can miss the point of a few paragraphs of clearly written prose, but I'm still failing to figure out how such a paragon of intellectual excellence has gotten so many other things wrong. Either I'm not properly applying myself, or someone isn't a bright as they keep telling themselves they are.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
Rupert Murdoch may have billions, but buying a death isn't easy, no matter how much money you have. On top of that, what's he get out of the guy being dead? This isn't going to stop just because some asshole who hacked people's shit is dead. he guy being dead didn't keep
Murdoch from having to appear before a parliamentary committee, it's not going to stop any on-going investigations, it's not going to stop the giant snowball that is already moving from going down-hill.
Stop? No, but be stymied enough it will wind down into business as usual.
"Business as usual" used to involve having a tabloid called 'News of the World,' so that option is also already out the window. If anything, not having the deceased alive to stonewall is going to make the process easier for the people looking to deep fry Murdoch's ass.
Aestu wrote:
You like to complain to no end about the cronyism and lack of effectiveness of our political system but you never stop to think about how you the common man, who believes what the media tells you, fits into that picture. This is a democracy, after all.
If I believed everything I was told by people I don't know and have no reason to trust, I'd believe the WTC was blown up by the Five Jewish Bankers and that Rupert Murdoch just had some guy killed by ninjas. Just for the record, Dr. Kaczynski, this
isn't a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic. If we were a democracy, Al Gore would have become president by winning the popular vote in 2000...so while you're sitting there doing your imaginary "I'm always right tally," be aware that I'm adding that to my imaginary "this fucker is talking out his ass" tally, and that my imaginary list is already a few sheaves of paper thicker than your own.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
Stupid people being swindled because they didn't research their investment, or were knowingly tossing money at something dubious hoping to turn a profit before it turned to shit isn't the same thing as suggesting that shadowy figures lurk in the fog killing people because...well, no reason, exactly, other than you've decided that it happened despite there being no evidence, other than your own paranoid delusions, to believe such a thing happened.
Stupid people? Jubber, these victims were far wealthier and more successful - and also a lot smarter - than you'll ever be. Really, who's the megalomaniac now? Who's the guy insisting that he's on the inside track and everyone else is stupid?
This just in: Being rich doesn't make you smart, any more than being smart makes you rich. Otherwise, why are you squandering your life living like a hermit on scraps from odds jobs and hand-outs from the parents you disdain?
Aestu wrote:
The Maddoff scheme was remarkable because these victims were some of the best and brightest. They committed one error, though, which was to take things at face value - to assume that big meant infallible and esteemed meant honorable. They did what you are doing which is refusing to take one's own estimate.
Smart people do stupid things, this is nothing new. A wise man once said, "A man has to know his limitations." I am very aware of mine...unlike the guy in the glass house who is tossing rocks.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
I might just be missing the brilliance of the 'guy who is never wrong,' yet doesn't realize corn oil isn't an appropriate sexual lubricant...or the guy that thought Nixon had been impeached...or the guy who...oh, never mind. I'm sure you have a host of good reasons why you weren't really wrong about any of those things, and any of us who try to talk you out of your tree are just ignorant buffoons for not buying it.
You insulted me but you didn't address my point - that I've been right too many times where others said I was off the deep end.
Yeah, let me insult you again and reiterate what I said in a very blunt way, with none of the previous subtlety that you would think an alleged genius would have taken note of before he replied: You're a hapless social retard who can't accept that any of the social failings in his life is due to his own buffoonery and blames everyone else in his relationships when they inevitably fail. Never mind that any and all of those failings are driven by his inability to admit when he's wrong, which is far more often than he can acknowledge, it's just not. his. fault.
My point was this: Regardless of how many times you've been "right," as noted, there have been an equally impressive number of times you've been wrong and/or based your conclusions on faulty assumptions. To err is human, and it all balances out for everybody, even you, as far as I'm concerned, but to insist that you're some sort of superhuman brain box despite the obvious and oft-highlighted failings of your thinking erases and benefit-of-the-doubt to which you're entitled.
Aestu wrote:
I've gotten this kind of bullshit from people about too many issues to count but curiously no one ever comes back and says "Oh, damn, you were right." That is why I feel quite secure in my arrogance; because no matter how many times I'm proven correct or the lengths to which I go to outline my logic, people will continue to unimaginatively believe what they will.
There's a difference between being right and just ignoring where you're wrong and thinking you're right, two things about which you are often confused.
Aestu wrote:
I call it "White Elephant Syndrome". People recognize and acknowledge my superior intelligence and knowledge, and embrace the immediate benefits it brings, but that acknowledgement quickly turns to lame and petty efforts to "split the difference" by insisting every merit must be balanced by some sort of flaw - clearly, my views on the world at large are stupid and wrong because I don't know so much about sex lubricants. Hence my intellect, for small people is a white elephant - a curiosity.
Your views are stupid and wrong for a lot of other reasons, but since you generally gloss over those or try to bullshit your way beyond them, it's just easier to tell you you're a dumb virgin with a limp dick because it accomplishes roughly the same thing in the end.
Aestu wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
Sherlock Holmes 101: The most likely answer is usually the right one, and it's more likely the man died of natural causes than it is that Murdoch, while under intense scrutiny at the moment, blew some undisclosed huge amount of money on killing him so that he wouldn't...what?
GTFO. You've never read Sherlock Holmes, because if you had you'd know that that's exactly the
opposite of the general theme of Sherlock Holmes stories.
Holmes thinks Scotland Yard is a bunch of dumbasses and second-guesses them and their facile interpretations in several stories. The general theme of Holmes is that the "obvious" conclusion is most likely the WRONG one because someone put it there for a reason. That's what makes the stories so interesting.
The Sherlock Holmes stories are really about why people like you are fking stupid. In citing them you reveal how little you really understand not only the stories but life itself.
I am not as well versed in the prose of Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle as once I was, but given that I have a mastery of the language that you, despite your alleged genius, obviously lack given your inability to discern the intended meanings of simple articles written so that a fifth grader could understand them, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're accusing me of not understanding because it's the sin you're guilty of and it's easier to project it onto me than it is to embrace that it is your own. In the words of Holmes himself, "The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes." Holmes isn't second-guessing the obvious, because by his own account, 'the obvious' is what everyone is missing.
Oddly, despite my 'not really understanding life itself,' I've had sex without paying for it, maintained the majority of friendships I've established, and generally had one hell of a good time...probably because I'm not the type of petty fuck that blames the things that are wrong in my life on everyone but myself while patting myself on the back for being so awesome.
Aestu wrote:
In the stories, Holmes is portrayed as an aloof eccentric with basically no friends (other than Watson and the one guy at Scotland Yard who talks to him) who curls into a fetal position in his chair and sits like that, motionless, for hours, while he works problems out. In one episode he's asked to attend a party and he refuses because he says he thinks they're lame and prefers to keep to himself. He also likes to solve enigmatic and trivial intellectual puzzles not connected to crime; those around him take a dim view of this. On the whole, he's portrayed as a depressed, morbid, cynical individual with a sort of whimsical and mirthful sense of humor.
When Watson or the Inspector talk to Holmes their initial reaction is usually one of skepticism or apprehension, but they give him the benefit of the doubt because they know he's been right before.
There is a reason why he's a PI and not an inspector, and how his eccentricities are part of his greater-than-average wisdom.
You left out his love for the violin...or was it viola...and his drug habit, among other awesome foibles.
Aestu wrote:
The fact you cite both Holmes and the stupid corn oil thing in the same breath prove my point: you're one of those people who think they're on the inside track when really they are buying the same tripe as everyone else who unimaginatively subscribes to the prevailing wisdom. What the Sherlock Holmes stories are really all about is that this guy can see more clearly what's going on precisely because he's aloof and doesn't buy the groupthink.
If anyone here thinks they're on "the inside track," it's you, not me. All the rest of that is just you fluffing your ego. You're no more Sherlock Holmes than I am James Bond, which is really saying something since I at least worked in intelligence once.
Aestu wrote:
I don't think I'm infallible. I don't think I'm always right. I think I am more likely right and less often wrong because I have the courage to examine my own thoughts.
That's great, Sunshine, now all you need is the courage to get someone else to examine your thoughts, because you're sounding more and more like someone else I know who has issues and is refusing to get help...which now that I think about it, is what is pissing me off most about this whole "I'm almost always right" bullshit with which you're fertilizing the forum.
Your Pal,
Jubber
