Posts

Posted on

How Can Anyone Believe Any of This B.S.?

Especially someone who’s supposedly “educated.” (Ah, but it was a British “education,” possibly the only system that can beat an Ivy League “education” for for sheer empty-headed, contrafactual numb-skullery when it comes to Islam.) Read this in the prologue of a novel:

“Years later, working in an uneasy alliance with the House of Saud, the Wahhabists returned to Mecca, shattering years of history and destroying the remains of the core of debate, of intellect, that had lit the fuse of Islam. Since then, Islamic thought has declined into madness, falling ever further into an abyss that can only result in destruction.”

Oh, utter, complete and absolute bullshit. Islam has always been just as it was started by that mass-murdering, slaving, thieving, raping, illiterate bullshit artist, The Butcher of Medina. At least 20-25% of the Koran is utter nonsense, gibberish, and 75% — the 75% or so that abrogates the Koran’s so-called “peaceful verses — or so is raging hate, instructing faithful Muslims to oppress or kill “unbelievers.” I throw the bullshit flag on this entire premise. Any so-called “core of debate, of intellect” existed either as weak rationalization for practices that denied Mohamed’s teachings or as making nearly useless gobbledegook of the genuine intellectual advances made by people savage Muslims had conquered.

The moral is “Pay no attention to the Taqiyya spread by Muslims and their co-conspirators, enablers and fellow travellers.” Islam is and always has been nothing but a brutal hate cult, with an occasional, very phony, veneer of civilized behavior. Scratch a Muslim and get a Mohamed analog: brutal, nasty, hateful and utterly savage.

Posted on

Typical Saturday @ TWC Central™

Read a book blurb. Aloud: “Highballs in the Hamptons? Not interested.”
My Wonder Woman: “You’re not interested in other people’s balls.”
Me: “You really lowballed that one.”
MWW: “If the cup fits. . . “

Posted on

Yet Another Uncontroversial “Controversy”

Clip vs. Magazine: In personal conversations–either IRW or via social media/forums, etc.–I simply explain the differences when someone misuses “clip” when referring to a magazine. When it’s misused by someone who is or expects to be paid for their writing, I excoriate such morons for not doing their homework. Such misuse in print by people being paid (or expecting to be paid) for their poor work ethic is reprehensible.

For reference, here is one type of clip–there are many–and one type of magazine (in this case, a stripper clip for [likely] a semi-automatic rifle with an internal magazine, and an external magazine for a semi-automatic or select fire rifle):

glossary_clip-vs-magazine_01-300x264

Of course, magazines for pistols and moon clips (and half-moon clips) for revolvers look a bit different to the pics above, but the differences between clips and magazines are so very clear and simple that writers who expect to be paid (or who have accepted pay) for writing articles or books who misuse “clip” to refer to a magazine are disgusting, lazy slugs who disrespect their readers with their poor work ethic.

Ah, I really should have just linked this and let it go, I suppose. *sigh* Lazy, subliterate, disrespectful frauds pretending to be writers wouldn’t care, anyway, and ordinary folks who simply want to know would just click on through and. . . learn.

“Hickock45” does a great job (as always) explaining the terms:

Posted on

Addicted Much?

Worked on just one dysfunctional computer today. “Cleaned up” some others. Then, chores around twc central. And. . . sat down briefly at one computer (FarceBooking, web browsing, checking email, etc.). Went to “work” (network housekeeping) on another (in another room). Read through a tutorial on yet another (yet another room). Accessed another remotely. From each of the other three computers. Read a bit on my (newest) tablet. Considered booting another one and decided. . . nah. Looked at one that needs to be put on the network and. . . “OK, why not?”

I think maybe I ought to go on a “computer diet”.

Posted on

Baffling, Massive Illiteracy

I don’t get people who say “calvary” when referring to “cavalry.” I mean, hello! One refers to horseback-mounted soldiers, and it ain’t “calvary,” because that has nothing to do with horses. Cavalry, however, entered English via the Norman French cavalier, from cheval (HORSE!), etc.

Of course, it takes a minimal literacy to get this, beyond simply reading the word and learning how to pronounce it from that. Confusing “cavalry” with “Calvary,” the famous location of Christ’s crucifixion? That takes both a failure of basic, extremely minimal literacy and a MASSIVE historical/cultural illiteracy as well.

Oh, self-made morons who make this astounding error do NOT get a “bye” because they mislearned it by hearing another self-made moron saying “calvary” when meaning “cavalry.” Nope. Even there I sneer at their empty braincases, because they are so very poorly read (no excuses; that’s their bad choice) and too butt lazy and self-enstupiated to remedy that problem.

OK, someone with an innate IQ under 70 might well get a bye. All others (and they are legion), nah.

Posted on

Stupid Errors in English Usage: Profoundly Stupid Misuse of “I”

I/me: I just cannot get my head around people who can’t figure subjective/objective case and consistently use “I” improperly. This is not one of those confusing or difficult English rules; it’s really extremely simple to keep straight. The most common misuse is something like, “The dog followed John and I to the door.” Simple to see how very stupid that is: just take “John” out of the sentence. “The dog followed I to the door.” See? Really dumb.

In days of yore, when “literate” had a chance of connoting “well read,” this problem was at least uncommon in published works, but today? Nope. Writers and editors nowadays are, well, let’s be generous here, less than literate, and certainly NOT well read.

Posted on

The Tueller Principle and the Umpqua Community College Social Darwinism Experiment

NOTE: This is almost all speculative, just wool-gathering.

Having a sidearm on one’s person (CCW or Open Carry) does not necessarily imply competence in self-defense. It may be an indicator of the possibility of competence, but as numerous supposedly capable law enFARCEment ossifers have demonstrated over just the past few years, it’s not dispositive.

Many factors determine self-defense competence: proper practice (in two meanings of “practice” *heh*), attitude, situational awareness, physical limitations–both personal and situational. The one true First Responder in the Umpqua Community College Social Darwinism Experiment was unarmed, save for his own body and mind. Did he throw a chair or desk at the attacker in preparation for his own physical attack? So far, no one has said. Did he even have a knife on his person? Apparently not.

Do note: the general “21-foot rule” on knife attacks would not have directly applied here. It was “clinically-established” in casual experimentation 30-some-odd years ago with a specific set of restricted parameters: trained law enforcement officers with firearm holstered were consistently unable to effectively engage an attacker armed with a (mock) knife before being “stabbed” if the attacker was within 21 (or variously, 22) feet. Simulated wounds received by the officers ranged from debilitating to deadly.

Of course, this demonstration did not just use officers who were supposedly trained in the use of their firearms and regs on the use of deadly force but a trained “attacker” as well. Had the former Army guy who was the real First Responder been trained in responding to an armed attacker, even though unarmed, things might have turned out a little different. Had he thrown one or more objects that could cause real harm to the attacker, things might have been different.

Do note that I greatly admire the courage and determination displayed. But it still, at least partially, came down to proper practice, attitude (OUTSTANDING!), situational awareness (?), and physical limitations–both personal and situational (particularly: he had already been targeted when he decided to act; he apparently didn’t even have a knife on his person).

Posted on

“Crating” Dogs? Bad Owner!

bad_dog_owner_n

IF crates are used,

1. they should be sized appropriately,
2. used with an “open door” policy (the dog can go in and out to suit its need/desire for a sense of its own space IF a given dog seems to need such a thing)
3. Only closed with dog inside for safety reasons when traveling.

Frankly, there are much better alternative to crates, no matter the situation. Proper training is the best alternative–of owners as well as dogs.

(If my barebones usage guide stated above seems to be in any way an endorsement of “crating” dogs, please be sure that it is not. I despise the things, in general, except in the case of those long-legged rats called Chihuahuas. . . Best kept there before being used in stewpots or as chum.)

Yeh, yeh, I’ve probably read all the excuses for “crating” dogs, and they’re all B.S. I don’t care to read ’em again. In almost all cases “crating” boils down to owners who are badly trained and unsuited to having a dog.