Archive for the ‘comments’ Category

Comment adverse? not really.

Screenshot from 2015-12-08 18:25:19 I’ve said this a couple of times:

intelligent and constructive comments or can say something interesting and informative Please don’t waste your time writing ridiculous, ignorant, and irelevant comments as they end up in the electronic dustbin without being read. Quality over quantity is my preference for comments.

Fortunately, I’ve scared off a lot of trolls which means not too many comments.

Anyway, I am not a “serious blogger” which is something some people haven’t gotten through their heads.

Anyway, that said, I do enjoy seeing interesting comments.  I managed to get a good thread going at the Guardian’s page–sort of satisfied with how this turned out.

Which is why I am memorialising it here.

Anyway, this doesn’t mean that I check the comments here on a regular basis (maybe as frequently as I post something here).  After all, I am not a “serious blogger”.

Posted 08/12/2015 by lacithedog in comment, commentary, comments, Uncategorized

Dealing with the Internet Crazies

“I am an elitist, but I have a respect for people who don’t measure up.”

“Some of these people haven’t taken their medication.”

The video from this was pulled, but I found a similar clip. It’s from an episode of the West Wing where Josh discovers the internet. Here is a transcript if this gets pulled again:
osh: Donna!
Donna: Yeah.
Josh: Sit down; we’re going to post a response on the site.
Donna: What site?
Josh: LemonLyman –
Donna: No.
Josh: Yeah, we got to post a response to someone.
Donna: It’s a bad idea.
Josh: Why?
Donna: You don’t know these people.
Josh: Neither do you.
Donna: Yes, I do.
Josh: What’s wrong with them?
Donna: Nobody knows.
Josh: They’re taking a very healthy interest in government. They should be applauded.
Donna: Then applaud them but stay off the site.
Josh: These are the people talking. I’m not an elitist.
Donna: You are an elitist.
Josh: I am an elitist but I have a respect for people who don’t measure up.
Donna: People on these sites tend to be a little hysterical.

Donna: What Josh doesn’t know is that some of these people have not taken their medication.

Josh (to CJ, about CJ, it’s a…crazy place. It’s got this dictatorial leader who I’m sure wears a muumuu and chain smokes Parliaments.
CJ: What did you go there for in the first place?
Josh: It’s called
CJ: Let me explain something to you. This is sort of my field. The people on these sites, they’re the cast of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The muumuu wearing Parliament smoker? That’s Nurse Ratched. And when Nurse Ratched is unhappy, the patients are unhappy. You, you’re McMurphy. You swoop in there with your card-games and your fishing trips –
Josh: I didn’t swoop in. I came in exactly the same way everybody else did.
CJ: Well, now I’m telling you to open the ward room window and climb on out before they give you a pre-fontal lobotamy and I have to smother you with a pillow.

Drimble Wedge & The Vegetations–Bedazzled

How I feel about comments.

Of course, the part about the Order of St. Beryl of Sussex is the best part of the film.

More of why I find comments to be a waste.

From the Daily Mash:

REGULAR internet commenter Tom Logan has admitted he is not even sure why he bothers.

Logan frequently posts comments on a wide range of websites, all of which provide him with broadly the same level of personal interaction as talking to a fridge.

Better yet:

Psychologist Donna Sheridan said: “Internet commenters often find it difficult to stop commenting, because this would be an admission that all their previous comments were a total waste of time.

“It’s a bit like compulsive gambling, but without the intellectual and social stimulation of spending all day in Ladbrokes.

Many a truth is spoken in jest!

Posted 15/10/2012 by lacithedog in comment, comments

A koan (just curious)

If a comment lands in the spam folder, does it give any indication that’s where it landed?

Seriously, if a valid comment is made, is there something which says “your comment will be visible after moderation”?

Likewise, if a comment lands in spam, does it just quietly land there?

Posted 09/06/2012 by lacithedog in Akismet, comment, comments, Junk, Spam Folder

Cease and desist

OK, this is pretty hypothetical stuff and is aimed more at the US “Conservatives” who tend to be more moronic and fringy than non-US conservatives.  After all, most of the readers of my blog are referred by a former member of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet! I should add that this is why I don’t really look at comments. But here goes…

I am not sure of what you are trying to persuade me about your “point of view”, but basing your argument solely upon an idea’s being “liberal” isn’t really valid, especially if the programme in question happens to have been suggested by the likes of Richard Nixon (e.g., environmental protection and gun control)!  If anything such an argument tend to show is that you are fairly ignorant.

And I don’t give a shit if you are a rocket scientist with patents, because ignorance means being in a state of not knowing.  That means you can be smart as fuck, but you are still an ignorant bastard!

To go a step further, ignorant arguments are just not persuasive–no matter how much you repeat them in the hope that repetition of a lie will make it true.

If you are too lazy to actually look into the topic, I am not interested in wasting my time listening to your repetition of nonsensical propositions.

First off, I actually have a life and things to do that are far more important than listening to you babbling (even if it is on a keyboard).  The fact that you are spending an inordinate amount of time just reading this blog makes me wonder about you.  You are putting far more into what I write than I do (as I just made a long overdue correction of a three year old typo).

And as for your comments, you have been asked not to post them here since they are rude, harassing, and just plain off pointless.  As I said earlier, you are only persuading me that you are a moron.

But, even more importantly, you are a moron who is coming close to breaking the law.  The First Amendment only protects you against government interference with your speech, private entities are under no obligation to you in any way.

And trust me, your “conservative” clowns will sell your arse out when it comes to free speech knowing full well that they would have to allow Unions, Socialists, and others to express their points of view.  They can’t do anything which might cause people to actually think about what it going on--and you are one of the ones they prefer to see not thinking–because people might start to ask questions.

But, that is a digression, what you believe to be free speech can be seen as harassment, threats, and intimidation placing them firmly into the category of being illegal.  That means such things as civil and criminal liability if you don’t get your shit together (although, I seriously doubt you could get your shit together).  You don’t want to loose your right to keep and bear arms, or are you hoping that people who harass and threaten are given a pass to keep their guns until they actually go on shooting sprees?

In short,  you are losing your argument, but are too dim to realise it.  That means you continue a course of conduct which is just downright counterproductive to everything you are hoping to achieve.

I am also going to ask where exactly you get your “facts” as they don’t coincide with reality.  Maybe they do in your universe, but not in the one I am inhabiting.

Is that in simple enough language for you to understand, or do I need to dumb it down further for you?

Julian Cope: World Shut Your Mouth

The BBC World Service has a programme called World Have your Say, those who know me know that I would prefer it this way:

Of course, really good, useful comments are always welcome.

Anyone who lives near Avebury and is “a fierce critic of contemporary Western society (with a noted and public interest in occultism, paganism and Goddess worship)” who went to School in Liverpool can’t be all bad.

Posted 25/02/2012 by lacithedog in comments, Julian Cope

The Reluctant blogger

It’s a bit unusual that someone whose opinion of blog comments is that they remind him of walking his dog.  The dog checks out a “post” on the street and makes her contribution on the “post” (figure it out). I write when I want to.  And hardly consider myself a serious blogger.

What the hell is a blog anyway.  It’s supposedly short for “web log”, but what does that mean?  It sounds to me like the Fast Show’s Jesse’s Diet sketches where Jesse emerges sporadically from his shed to inform a waiting world about his diet, with the words, “This week I ‘ave mostly been eating…”

In reality, they are vanity presses for people to vent. All sorts of opinions and observations show up on blogs. Some are well based, while others can be so far out to be amazing. It’s good to know what opinions are well founded v. just off the wall.  For example, the insurrectionist theory of the Constitution, which is just plain bollocks.

Anyway, there are people out there who think that blogs should be like scholarly journals or in some other way professional, rather than just being random musings and other interesting bits.  Others, as well as myself, have pointed out that these are like the commonplace book–places where people keep their notes.  It’s a bit outrageous to expect professional standards from this sort of writing.

I blog for my own amusement and don’t care if people read this.

I do have to admit to wanting to post some of the inane comments I’ve received, but I refrain from that.  They are read for my own amusement.

I agree with this

From Porcelain Theology

This blog is the digital equivalent to the scribble you might find on the stall wall at a filthy highway rest stop.
For some, it may be a memorable, thought-provoking, humorous or just plain off-putting experience. To others, a simple waste of a click. Personally, I don’t care how you feel about it so as long as you flush before you leave…

I’ve said before that blogs remind me of talking a walk with Laci where she sniffs the excrement and might add some of her own to the mess.

Posted 18/07/2011 by lacithedog in Blogging, commentary, comments


I was at a family do this past weekend when the topic of climate change deniers came up with a relative who works in the field of climate change and food security. My question was “so, are you going to beat up on the likes of “Lord” Monckton and Sammy Wilson?” Her response surprised me, but made loads of sense.

“Why? the people who know that climate change is real are the people I am going to be dealing with. It would be a waste of time to try to persuade that type of person when I can be putting my efforts into getting something done.”

Point taken. No matter how much you try to logically disucss a topic with someone who is totally illogical, they will refuse to see reason. Your argument can be in big, bold letters, yet they will disagree for whatever reason they choose–no matter how silly that reason may be to the educated observer. These people will believe discredited studies and sources.

But those aren’t the people I want to spend my time on. I want to get the people who can use my information for good purposes. I want to link up with others who can work with me to achieve my goals. I know those people are out there, but I need to connect to them.

The other people will continue in their echo chamber, but I prefer to connect with people who are willing to go forward to change the world for the better. I don’t have the time to deal with the astroturfers.

Why I am particular about people who can comment here.

{ed. This was cross posted at the Man with the Muckrake blog as Sepp, through his ignorance, refers to Obama as a man of principle, envied by rivals}

I was invited to be a guest author on the Man with the Muckrake’s Blog haven’t figured out how to post as a guest author  or I would make this interaction a post on his blog.  I’m hoping someone with those privileges does that since it would be amusing to see sepp see make a fool himself.  But he does that all the time anyway.

Anyway, there is a moron, Sepp, who likes to come by and make idiotic comments which I fact check and show he has no idea of what he is talking about.  In typical “How to talk to Liberals” form, he continues saying the same shit.

Here  sepp, through his ignorance, compliments Barack Obama!

Sepp is too much of a dumbshit to have figured out what was going on.  Anyway…

65 Responses to “Cartoon Characters Headline 2012 GOP Candidates”

-Sepp Says:
03/25/2011 at 10:59 AM | Reply

<snip through right wing nonsense>

A man for all seasons!

  • lacithedog Says:
    03/25/2011 at 2:05 PM | Reply
    A man for all seasons! 

    Naw, that was Sir Thomas More, you twat!

    • lacithedog Says:
      03/26/2011 at 1:31 PM
      Since sepp is too dim to understand this comment, I will further explain that a literary allusion works a whole lot better when you use it correctly.The work a Man for All Seasons was about Sir Thomas More: 

      The plot is based on the true story of Sir Thomas More, the 16th-century Chancellor of England, who refused to endorse King Henry VIII’s wish to divorce his aging wife Catherine of Aragon, who could not bear him a son, so that he could marry Anne Boleyn, the sister of his former mistress. The play portrays More as a man of principle, envied by rivals such as Thomas Cromwell and loved by the common people and by his family.

      As the blurb points out, More was a man of principle.

      Sepp, by not having an idea of what he is talking about is referring to Obama in the same light as Sir Thomas More.

      And he wonders why I think he’s a shit for brains.

Sepp , of course, misses the fact that his literary allusion totally blows the point he is trying to make to anyone with any knowledge of the play “A Man For All Seasons” and says:

So to break my point down for you, and explain the point in it’s most basic meaning so you can understand it, I took the long route in saying that Obama appeals to BOTH party extremes since he talks like Obama and acts like Bush.

My response:

Yeah, but in typical Sepp dumbshit fashion, you torpedo that by saying “A Man for All Seasons” which is a play about Sir Thomas More.

The play shows More as a man of principle envied by rivals and loved by the common people.

Literary allusions work a whole lot better when you have some idea of what you are saying, shit for brains.

Don’t confuse me with japete, Baldur Odinson, or MikeB302000…

Or even JadeGold.

Quite frankly, I am not interested in hearing from you if you can’t say something intelligent. What you say is not well thought out or even accurate (I do cite check you). In other words, I find most of you very tedious and annoying.

One of the reasons that I made the move from blogspot to here was that I have the ability to block people from commenting, which is something that I do.

So, unless you can offer intelligent and constructive comments or can say something interesting and informative, don’t waste your time doing such as your comments end up in the electronic dustbin without being read.

Personally, I find blog comments to be like my dog and her pee mail. She stops and smells and adds her excrement to the pile.

Posted 23/02/2011 by lacithedog in comments

Eric Idle Responds to Your Fatuous Comments

I wish I could REALLY get him to do this, but this will have to do…

“When you’re stupid, there’s nothing that can be done…”

“…Cleese is using a silly walker…” (OK, no one has said anything about Cleese in a comment here, but that I pretty good).

“You should never believe anything you read online…”

“X, Who the fuck are you…”

“What wrong with you guys–Bush wasn’t bad enough?”

I have to give credit here

For a super comment from VanDyke about this post:

This post fits the criteria of intelligent and constructive comment. It also adds in another aspect that I didn’t consider: informative. It may not have been as useful as the comment from FAN, but it did have some very super and informative links (remember my big thing here is British TV and I know squat about intellectual property law).

He probably meant to defend the phrase as a trademark. He has that right even though Mr. Smith hasn’t registered this phrase (there is a public database searchable via A curious industry “owns” the mark, although not exclusively).

I doubt you afforded preexisting trust before the letter. I additionally doubt you extend this mistrust to other individuals who may similarly contact you to defend their marks (ed: yes, I would since it’s a normal reaction–see below quote about C&Ds.). It’s common practice and considered “good stewardship” of the mark.

More info can be found at

The examples of Cease and Desist letters put this all in perspective, especially the one at ThinkGeek. It’s nice to know that I am not the only person who felt this way, which Van Dyke would understand if he read the links he sent me:

Question: I have an unsettling feeling in the pit of my stomach about the tone of the C&D I received. Does the tone of the c & d mean I am going to lose this dispute?

Answer: “Gorilla Chest Thumping” refers to the tone of most C&Ds: it’s nasty. The first thing to do is take a deep breath. The second thing to do is to acknowledge that the tone of the letter is a function of the letter writer’s perception that aggression is the best defense: do not take it personally. The third thing to do is ignore the tone and focus on the facts. You may eventually choose to respond aggressively yourself, but do not do so because your opponent has egged you into a useless game of whose gorilla is bigger. Take a tip from Ani Di Franco: “If you play their game, girl, you’re never gonna win.” Face Up and Sing, Out of Range, Righteous Babe Records (1994).

Anyway, I love comments like this and will always publish them.

“Censored” by Japete

Yep, she didn’t post the entire version of this: although I have edited this:

I have read the entire Miller decision.

First off, the quotes are not mine, but Supreme Court Justices, which Anon keeps neglecting to mention. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that he knows the law better than two of the longest seated Supreme Court Justices: Douglas and Stevens. I should be flattered that anon believes my legal acumen is on par with these two justices, even if that is only through his ignorance.

Anyway, The Miller Court said:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The problem is that anon quotes dicta which doesn’t really help his position.  Yes, you have a right to a weapon if that weapon is to be used as part of militia service. So, this ends up being fallacious reasoning.  His position is that non-militia weapons are covered, which is something that cannot be inferred from the above passage from the Miller decision.

Likewise, Anon is neglects to address this statement from Miller:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

Both Justices Stevens and Douglas refer to the above quotes, which Anon discounts as being insignificant and not worth mentioning in preference for something noting that those serving in the militia were expected to bring their own arms. That is a fairly meaningless statement since that quote tells us nothing of private, non-service weapons. So, we see that the quotes from Miller address the issue of weapons having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” and no non-militia purposes.

Likewise, the reference to Aymette, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840), which Justice McReynolds was familiar since he taught at Vanderbilt, brings up the following:

But a prohibition to wear a spear concealed in a cane, would in no degree circumscribe the right to bear arms in the defence of the State; for this weapon could in no degree contribute to its defence, and would be worse than useless in an army. And, if, as is above suggested, the wearing arms in defence of the citizens, is taken to mean, the common defence, the same observations apply.

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, “bear arms,” is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, “that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law.” Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

In short, McReynolds is referring to a decision from the Tennesse Supreme Court which held that “to bear arms” had a military significance and did not refer to non-military uses when he refers to Aymette.

Anonymous quotes a portion from the dicta which deals with historic events, not the state of the law when Miller was written.  That portion hardly makes my position “bankrupt” since anon does not address the above comments that there needs to be some nexus between the weapon and preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia for the Second Amendment to apply and that the term to “bear arms” refers to military use. In fact, when read in its entirity, Miller backs up my position.

Anon’s choice of passage from Miller’s dicta hardly makes my position “intellectually bankrupt”.  If anything, Anon demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Miller decision by neglecting the above passages from that decision which is further buttressed by his contradicting the Justice Douglas quotation from Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972):

A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.

Note Justice Douglas quotes Miller: The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

Of course, Anon is saying that several Supreme Court Justices, including the one who wrote the Miller decision, did not understand that decision. Anon’s statements dismiss experienced legal minds on the basis of ignorance as well as faulty reasoning. This demonstrates an astonishing level of self-belief in his knowledge of law. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, he knows more about this subject (since he shows no sign of ever having studied it) than the supreme court justices who have spent their careers working in that field.

Likewise, if he is going to tell me that my position is “intellectually bankrupt” he had better come up with better references which contradict the ones I have given above. If anyone’s position is “intellectually bankrupt”, it is anon’s as he is arguing with legal minds far better than mine. I’m not sure what his point is since he ignores that fact and demonstrates a superb form of ignorance.

Quite frankly, Anon would do well to think before speaking unless he enjoys showing himself to be a fool by saying that two of the longest seated Supreme Court Justices (one of whom was on the Miller Court) have an “intellectually bankrupt” interpretation of the Miller decision.