Nederlog        

 

16 augustus 2007

                                                                 

PuntersComments - or the Sanity of ButterfliesAndWheels fans

[appendix to: Hopefully the last on a pretentious feminist twit]

 

Ms Benson and co-careerists in hysterical politics and would be "philosophy" offer a possibility to "Comment" on her rants, and the one that is about my prose (quoting it without my permission, out of context, and in part, as she knew - and see below) got 35 comments by August 15 2007.

Most of them follow below, and I have removed most of the aliases and emails of the punters who wrote them (any protests are dealt with on my site, if sane enough).

This is mere human kindness on my part, and I am honest enough to say so.

Those who administrate the site of Ms Benson are not, for the two comments that might conceivably be explained as supporting me (by a Dutchman, not me) have been removed since (but are present in this survey).

Behold the comments of the punters for Ms Benson, the Ranting Feminist, whose texts I put in blue for contrast - but please notice that what all or most contributors knew about the case, when writing, is what Ms Benson felt free to exhibit of it, without my permision, in her Another Swift, another Pope, another Wilde:



Pretty good? Yes, but creepy.
I hope this person is far away from where you are, OB. Mind how you go.
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 03:22:34 |


Reading that was like watching a particularly dreary fight scene in a movie: Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch....... Punch.......
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 03:51:18 |


I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!
| ChrisPer | 2007-08-13 - 04:12:51 |


Breathtaking.

Much as the smell of ripe fish guts is breathtaking.
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 04:56:13 |


You might have read it all wrong, Ophelia. The poor soul is pleading for you to don a dom outfit and beat the living shit out of him. He knows he deserves such.
|
mirax | 2007-08-13 - 06:49:51 |


mirax: That comment was both laugh-out-loud hilarious and grotesquely disturbing at the same time.

Does it say something about me that I often find those two things going hand-in-hand?

;-)
G
|
G | 2007-08-13 - 07:53:36 |


And I thought I was the biggest pain in the ass around here!
| Richard. | 2007-08-13 - 08:09:36 |


Is this raver a muslim loonie, or what?

Ehsan Jami, and Tasleema Nasreen, and all their friends, need all the support and help they can get.
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 11:03:04 |


Actually, Richard, I thought it WAS you until I read the bit about being Dutch, and then began to feel that it somewhat exceeded your norm for faux gallantrie.

You can now ponder whether that is a compliment or not :))
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 11:43:44 |


I must say, the contention that men in general are not good at being one way in public and another way in private does not seem to me well-supported by the available evidence.

(I also remark in passing that Dutch people speaking English can come across as direct to an extent which sometimes seems to native speakers - British ones at any rate - unacceptably rude, and I have known this to be the cause of grievous misunderstandings).
| potentilla | 2007-08-13 - 12:11:58 |


Potentilla, I know it's also a problem with native French speakers, however I also think we can safely discard that explanation in this case...
| *** 2007-08-13 - 15:13:50 |


Did this person comment here using initials?

|
Don | 2007-08-13 - 15:38:45 |


Yeah, it was G! heh heh.

(Sorry G)
| Nick S | 2007-08-13 - 16:41:24 |


One thing that interests me about the post is your allusion to possibly needing permission to quote from his emails. Do you think that is actually so?

As a matter of courtesy one might ask permission of a correspondent but it seems to me that once you receive the email, you own the words and only good manners and human decency would prevent one from printing it in its entirety. Even if someone asks for confidentiality I doubt that you have a legal burden to do so.

Forget about a writing. Suppose someone says something to you. Do you have an obligation not to quote them without permission? I don't think so.

But then again, that's just my sense and I don't know the law.
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 17:20:16 |


Put up a hate mail section. Every blog ought to have a hate mail section. Put up a disclaimer next to your "email us" link to the effect of: "Any hate mail may be posted in the hate mail section. Butterflies and Wheels has sole discretion in determining what constitutes hate mail."

| *** | 2007-08-13 - 17:55:39 |


No, this guy doesn't comment here, he just corresponds (persistently) with me. No, I don't really think I need permission to quote from his emails; I was thinking of it as a courtesy or a moral quasi-duty, either or both of which I took (and still take) to be negated by his colossal gall. In short, by sending me a series of increasingly ill-mannered emails, he waives all right to privacy for said emails.
| OB | 2007-08-13 - 19:11:39 |


Brevity should be the soul of snarkiness. He could have got his point across by saying Yes O Blessed OB.
| *** | 2007-08-13 - 20:53:28 |


Brevity is not what he does. He is both repetitive and long-winded - he says the same thing over and over and over and over again, at vast and tedious length. And he doesn't give up - if I don't agree with him he just keeps explaining why he's right.

I stopped answering out of sheer boredom, but then he asked why, and I resumed again out of sheer guilt. And this is my reward! Well, I won't repeat that mistake.
| OB | 2007-08-13 - 21:31:02 |


'I resumed again out of sheer guilt...'

Apparently the Duke of Wellington was similarly afflicted, unable not to reply to correspondence. If he received so much as a congratulatory note from someone similarly inclined, the reciprocal acknowledgements could continue for years.

Anyway, Dawkins is on telly and I've open a cheeky little merlot.

| Don | 2007-08-13 - 22:07:04 |


Dawkins is on telly - ah you lucky bastards; I'd like to see that. Oh well, it will be on YouTube no doubt.
| OB | 2007-08-13 - 22:42:27 |


Well, he seemed quite taken by the dowsers, who were patently honest eccentrics and who were devastated by the results.

The astrologer chap, on the other hand copped the withering stare for his egregious bluster and bullshit.

And other good stuff.


|
Don | 2007-08-14 - 00:52:30 |


Don,

yer, it were right good it were.

He's clearly learned a wee trick or two from the fundy response to his last show - this time he let them hang themselves beautifully when required even more, and was careful not to appear 'hectoring' or 'strident' [:-)] Although the "Dawkins Withering Stare of Skepticism"(tm) was certainly deployed a few times, and quite bloody right too!

The amount of time he gave that crapulent psychic to bluster on about "personal evidence" was most impressive...

I even kept my older cheeky little monkey (nae merlot, alas) up so he could watch the great RD in action!

Just another reason why my M-i-L hates my guts...! :-))
| *** | 2007-08-14 - 01:34:49 |


Hey I have one of those! A withering stare. Jeremy calls it laser eyes. Actually it's just that I happen to look furious when my face is in a neutral state - but it can come in handy at times. (When I don't in fact want people to scream and run away, it's not quite so handy.)
| OB | 2007-08-14 - 02:29:03 |


Don - did you note that the astrologer is a paid up employee of the Observer ? Depressing.
| Nick S | 2007-08-14 - 11:47:33 |


OB: "it's just that I happen to look furious when my face is in a neutral state"

I look forward to those photos from Beyond Belief!

Actually, I sympathise. I have been told that I always look either pissed off or deep in thought. I am of course neither. Ever.
| *** | 2007-08-14 - 11:48:34 |


Nick,

Yeah, but on the plus side over at stablemate the Guardian, Charlie Booker is in fine form.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html
|
Don | 2007-08-14 - 17:46:56 |


Don, that's true... Brooker had me laughing out loud over my boiled eggs with that piece on Saturday morning.
| Nick S | 2007-08-14 - 18:16:46 |


Charlie's always good for a laugh. His article on night clubs in yesterday's Guardian was a classic.

Anyway, the Dawkins programme was enjoyable -although I thought Radio 4's Front Row were onto something when they suggested it was a more general malaise in education, rather than post-modernism, which is responsible for the crisis in science teaching. The bit on the superstitious pigeons was genuinely interesting - and perhaps gets to the root of why so much superstitious quackery persists throughout human society. In evolutionary terms, it is probably less disadvantageous to spot a pattern where none exists, than to fail to observe a pattern that actually does exist.


I'm looking forward to the quack medicine show he's doing next week, as I reckon those guys are a damned sight more dangerous, more sinister and more worthy of Dawkins' attention, than mere spirit mediums, dowsers, astrologers et cetera.
| *** | 2007-08-14 - 20:16:21 |


It seems that mirax nailed it. This nutjob is begging for a strenuous spanking from OB while she's wearing the "special outfit" of his fantasies.

(I hope _The Enemies of Reason_ comes to PBS in the States.)
|
Doug | 2007-08-14 - 20:35:36 |


He'd be very disappointed to meet the reality then - T shirt and jeans; about as 'special' as a glass of milk. No whips, no tattoos, no nothin'.
| OB | 2007-08-14 - 20:57:57 |


The astrologer's retort:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2146775,00.html
| Fryslan | 2007-08-14 - 23:22:01 |


Būter, brea, en griene tsiis; wa't dat net sizze kin, is gjin oprjochte Fries", which in English reads:

"Butter, bread, and green cheese, whoever can't say that is no sincere Fries"?
| Slan! | 2007-08-14 - 23:35:35 |


The bit on the superstitious pigeons was genuinely interesting - and perhaps gets to the root of why so much superstitious quackery persists throughout human society.

Patrick


It's difficult to see how superstitious notions (leading on to religions?) could arise accidentally by interacting with the world - ultimately conceiving of nature as deceiver; and there being no natural bias, how are all our individual experiences supposed to conglomerate into mighty institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church? With humans We are dealing with misconception and deception, a totally different order to animal misperceiving.

http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/mansreligiousquest.html

| *** | 2007-08-14 - 23:54:18 |


"A mere simpleminded male such as I has the shortcoming of saying what he thinks, presumptuous as that is,"

In my humble opinion, could you please clarify your posting. It all sounds to me like DD.

"But The Dawk sees enemies everywhere: chanting hippies, doughty dowsers, internet surfers - all are helping 'undermine civilisation'."

I am with you all of the way on this one hawk Dawk!

| Slan! | 2007-08-15 - 00:22:11 |


OK thats enough oxygen for the idiot - if you want you cloud delete the whole post now. You don't have to feed his self-importance.
| ChrisPer | 2007-08-15 - 04:16:52 |



So... those were the voices of reason, rationality and evidence of ButterfliesAndWheels readers (for opinions NOT agreed with, or so they believe, on the strength of the quotations and opinions of the ranting Ms OB):

  • "You might have read it all wrong, Ophelia. The poor soul is pleading for you to don a dom outfit and beat the living shit out of him. He knows he deserves such."
  • "Is this raver a muslim loonie, or what?"
  • "It seems that mirax nailed it. This nutjob is begging for a strenuous spanking from OB while she's wearing the "special outfit" of his fantasies."
  • "OK thats enough oxygen for the idiot - if you want you cloud delete the whole post now. You don't have to feed his self-importance."

Care to take me on, any of you great heroes of the freedom of opinion, on my own site, so that I can control the honesty of your quotations, and need not be concerned with merely private mails and continuous quoting out of context in Bensonic style?

But please, if so: Your English does not need to be polite about me, but it must at least be better English than Ms Ophelia Benson is capable of, and also of somewhat lesser irrationality - which, "IMHO, of course", is not much to require at all.

Apart from that, if you want to comment on me, and e.g. explain why you - not being Dutch - know so much better than I do why the Blessed Ayaan should merit belief and support in her very well-paying career, then do so. I will fairly quote you, and honestly explain why I disagree, including a lot of evidence (most of which is written in Dutch, by Dutchmen) - provided you know how to write proper English, quote me (and others) fairly, and are capable of some rational argument.

The raving ranter Ms Ophelia Benson I will not answer privately. I am done with her, for she seems to me to be a liar and a hysteric, out for a journalist career, and money. She should apply at the AEI, for a personal assistance-ship with Ayaan the Blessed, and to take lessons at the feet of Mr Dick Cheney, where even they can learn a bit about "how to lie and influence people".

Finally, I'd like to notice two points and five Comments.

First, Ms Benson herself, explaining her own great courage, decency, morality and honesty, knowing full well that I had several times written her that my private mails are not for publication:


No, this guy doesn't comment here, he just corresponds (persistently) with me. No, I don't really think I need permission to quote from his emails; I was thinking of it as a courtesy or a moral quasi-duty, either or both of which I took (and still take) to be negated by his colossal gall. In short, by sending me a series of increasingly ill-mannered emails, he waives all right to privacy for said emails.
| OB | 2007-08-13 - 19:11:39 |


Brevity is not what he does. He is both repetitive and long-winded - he says the same thing over and over and over and over again, at vast and tedious length. And he doesn't give up - if I don't agree with him he just keeps explaining why he's right.

I stopped answering out of sheer boredom, but then he asked why, and I resumed again out of sheer guilt. And this is my reward! Well, I won't repeat that mistake.
| OB | 2007-08-13 - 19:11:39 |


He'd be very disappointed to meet the reality then - T shirt and jeans; about as 'special' as a glass of milk. No whips, no tattoos, no nothin'.
| OB | 2007-08-14 - 20:57:57 |


For sure. In Ms Benson's case I am quite willing to believe it is merely mental. It's the same in many of the psychological and psychiatric cases in the literature, that I am acquainted with, and she is not.

But let's leave her case alone, and finally turn to these two mails, clearly by a Dutchman, who may have read my A Psychological Experiment - 1 or A Psychological Experiment - 2:


Būter, brea, en griene tsiis; wa't dat net sizze kin, is gjin oprjochte Fries", which in English reads:

"Butter, bread, and green cheese, whoever can't say that is no sincere Fries"?
| Slan! | 2007-08-14 - 23:35:35 |


"A mere simpleminded male such as I has the shortcoming of saying what he thinks, presumptuous as that is,"

In my humble opinion, could you please clarify your posting. It all sounds to me like DD.

"But The Dawk sees enemies everywhere: chanting hippies, doughty dowsers, internet surfers - all are helping 'undermine civilisation'."

I am with you all of the way on this one hawk Dawk!

| Slan! | 2007-08-15 - 00:22:11 |


I am not he (or she), whom I don't know at all, and not Frisian either (though it so happens that I can read Frisian because I know both Dutch and Norwegian, and Frisian seems much like an inbetween case of these two languages) - and "Slan!" probably refers to the end of A Psychological Experiment - 1, when I ironically drink to the health of Ms Benson, who indeed is much in need of it.

And "The Dawk", I take it, refers to Richard Dawkins (whom I recommend to beware of Ms Benson, and her likes, fellows, and co-workers, for they are neither honest nor qualified scientifically, and very much out for a free ride on the fame of others, towards their own incomes and statuses. Also, their supposed "philosophy" - what I could digest of it - is cheesy, boring, ill-written pretentious journalism.)

The two quoted Comments by "Slan!" have been slashed - censured, lopped off, removed, castrated, smothered, killed, dom jobbed - presumably by the ChrisPer avatar, who, while doing so, also lopped of his own earlier posted desire to see it happpen. Of course, readers of ButterfliesAndWheels are not informed about this censorship at ButterfliesAndWheels, THE site for the lesser gifted modern lefty fanatic or feminist. 

Heya, ChrisPer, brave loveydovey!

Care to explain in public, on my site, why I am an "idiot"? (You may do so, and I won't misquote you either, but I will need your age, academic degrees and working private mail-address first, so as to see whether you minimally qualify. Also, I may have to say a few not so friendly things about you, always speaking as psychologist or philosopher, of course, for in both subjects I do hold (very good) academic degrees. But you seem such a Great Hero, so very rational and honest also, that I am willing to talk to you, in public).

In conclusion, also for all of Ms Benson's readers who very well may be out for a deeply satisfying trashing of themselves by me, not her:

No such luck for you! Having taken the full measure of Ms Ophelia Benson - loony feminist ranter, scold, and journalistic careerist of very doubtful mental health - your mails will be considered spam or blocked, unless they meet my minimalistic rational demands, and then they may be discussed in public.

And also y'all will have to satisfy your cravings for trashings, scoldings, denigrations or verbal or real whippings, whoppings or whatnots plus all the joys "the dom job" on you may give you, from the thus highly qualified and willing hands and big mouth of Ms Benson, when thus inclined, and who that way may be as highly qualified as she is wholly unqualified in science, mathematics, philosophy, logic, rationality or reason.

Tada punters, and I wish y'all much pleasures of the Bensonic kind!
     (SPW)


P.S. This file of punter-documentation is also for the benefit of lawyers. (And my own time is expensive, too.)

Maarten Maartensz

 

        home - index - top - mail