April 28, 2005
— Ace There are some who still hunt monsters:
Sitting in front of two computers in a blue suit and gold tie, Det. Constable Paul Krawczyk starts the day as a 13-year-old girl. Within minutes of his entering a chat room on education, and without asking for them, men are e-mailing nude pictures. "It's always the same," he says. "After two minutes, here come the body parts."
Sometimes, he can set up a meeting with a likely offender within half an hour; others take months to be drawn out.
By lunchtime, he is a pedophile conversing with a fellow "pedo" on the other side of the world about their shared interest. "R u active?" he asks, meaning do you abuse kids. "Yea," the message comes back. "Seven [years old] and 2."
The pedo describes his exploits in unprintable detail and eventually asks to exchange pictures. They negotiate for a while, and the other guy sends a dozen photos that seem to be culled from other websites.
That guy, they determined, probably wasn't a hands-on abuser, but "merely" a child-porn collector.
This is weird:
On one wall is a "Star Trek" poster with investigators' faces substituted for the Starship Enterprise crew. But even that alludes to a dark fact of their work: All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie.
Det. Constable Warren Bulmer slips on a Klingon sash and shield they confiscated in a recent raid. "It has something to do with a fantasy world where mutants and monsters have power and where the usual rules don't apply," Bulmer reflects. "But beyond that, I can't really explain it."
Thanks to Dennis.
And Please... I know that last bit is so weird it suggests some jokes... but I've already thought of a couple of them, and they're all in horrible taste, so let's just say there are obvious jokes there but they're not worth making and leave it at that.
He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times' reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?
Nevertheless, Detective Lamond does claim that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest."
The MSM blew it again. Still, a "majority" of pedophiles having at least a passing interest in Star Trek... I don't know. Perhaps it could be said that the general population of America has "at least a passing interest" in Star Trek, too.
Doesn't matter to me. I've always been a Star Wars guy.
Ace, can we agree now that if CF comes in on the side of pedo's you'll ban him forever? Hehe
Posted by: fat kid at April 28, 2005 12:02 PM (yHxMk)
Posted by: pinky at April 28, 2005 12:02 PM (/xdEX)
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at April 28, 2005 12:05 PM (tLqLU)
Don't you know there's a war on?
(Would it be any better if I said 'There's a war OFF?')
Posted by: ed in texas at April 28, 2005 12:08 PM (ZIG1i)
i'm glad the good guys are out there
Posted by: brak at April 28, 2005 12:09 PM (OuLOj)
Posted by: Ray Midge at April 28, 2005 12:10 PM (kUNrb)
Posted by: at April 28, 2005 12:24 PM (jJPIT)
Posted by: ed in texas at April 28, 2005 12:25 PM (ZIG1i)
Weird, like the strange coincidence of so many serial killers owning VW Beetles.
Cite? Other than Ted Bundy (who was caught speeding in one), I've not heard about this particular connection.
Should I be worried that I'm a Trekkie who's also an air-cooled VW nut? Who knows what I might be doing when I sneak out while I'm not paying attention...
Posted by: Anachronda at April 28, 2005 12:27 PM (IrbU4)
What? Do I detect another Batman acolyte?
Ace, can we agree now that if CF comes in on the side of pedo's you'll ban him forever?
Who do you think you're kidding? You would miss Cedarford horribly if he were banned. Who else would you beat up on if he were gone?
Posted by: Michael at April 28, 2005 12:31 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: larry at April 28, 2005 12:32 PM (kUNrb)
Posted by: at April 28, 2005 12:35 PM (jJPIT)
VW Beetle cite:
I don't know. I think Sigourney Weaver said it in Copycat.
I really think I've read that before, but that's the only cite I can come up with off the top of my head.
Loose shit? Maybe. I'll delete it.
Posted by: ace at April 28, 2005 12:37 PM (Q6+G6)
Posted by: fat kid at April 28, 2005 12:40 PM (yHxMk)
Posted by: compos mentis at April 28, 2005 12:40 PM (uCHTx)
And if I dress up like a big squirrel and rub myself up against people dressed like marmosets, what fucking business is that of yours?
Who's the victim?
Posted by: ace at April 28, 2005 12:41 PM (Q6+G6)
No kidding. Just check here:
Posted by: Michael at April 28, 2005 12:42 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: lauraw at April 28, 2005 12:47 PM (e4Mfz)
I'm not saying whether the answer's yes, no, or maybe. I'm saying social conservatives are the only people I know who will ASK. I'm saying the resultant huffing and puffing from the libertines when they do ask-- the "OMG how can you even SUGGEST that, I mean what I do in the privacy of my own HOME has NOTHING to do with these sick freaks, OMG you are such a THEOCRAT" responses--shuts down the discussion before it can start.
I'm rambling. Look, it's just that I talk to older people and they're always like, "This shit never happened in my day. Or if it did, we didn't know about it." And the usual response is, that's why it's so important that we take a free and open approach to sex, so we can correct the underreporting of abuse that certainly occurred in olden times. And it's kind of taken for granted that this is the only sane answer.
What I'm wondering is, back when the threat of eternal damnation and torment was still held over these creeps' heads--how many of them simply killed themselves rather than continue their lives of hopeless depravity? Maybe teaching them that There Is Hope, and You Can Change, and Rehabillitation with Pharmaceuticals Can Help You--maybe that's a BAD idea. I'm certainly not seeing any evidence that it was a good one.
Just riffing. Not trying to start any blog wars or, heaven forbid, scold anyone, except maybe the pedophiles, for whom scolding is not enough. I dunno, delete this if you think it's going to just stir up bad blood, or if you think some dipshit is going to get the idea that I just said libertarian conservatives support pedophilia, which I think it's pretty clear I did NOT say; but you know, friggin' people sometimes.
Oh. The Trek thing? That's just weird. Very, very weird.
Posted by: ilyka at April 28, 2005 12:55 PM (2EWpA)
Posted by: fat kid at April 28, 2005 01:02 PM (yHxMk)
Posted by: Pseudarford at April 28, 2005 01:28 PM (Mxw5p)
Sorry, but if you're looking for a pedophile, you look at people who attend Klingon language seminars first. If you're looking for a serial killer you look at white males between 27 and 38 first, preferably with a religious background (disowned or not). If you're looking for a serial rapist, a pot dealer, or a 7-11 robber, you look for a black male.
Just as we should look for brown and/or Moslem males when we're hunting for people who're likely to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane, rather than white, female, blonde hairdressers from Iowa.
Denying racial, religious, or cultural identification patterns in crime helps more criminals kill more people. That's about it.
Posted by: Megan at April 28, 2005 01:44 PM (jBXwy)
Posted by: fat kid at April 28, 2005 01:48 PM (yHxMk)
"All right, Token, give me a smooth bass line."
"I don't know how to play bass."
"Token, how many times do we have to go through this? You're black. You can play bass."
- the "racist" label-train seems to left the station.
Posted by: Megan at April 28, 2005 01:52 PM (jBXwy)
Posted by: Megan at April 28, 2005 01:53 PM (jBXwy)
Posted by: Megan at April 28, 2005 01:55 PM (jBXwy)
Posted by: carin at April 28, 2005 01:58 PM (Fgzmn)
Posted by: fat kid at April 28, 2005 02:34 PM (yHxMk)
I will *NOT* make jokes about this site
I will *NOT* make jokes about this site...
(but where's Dave?)
Posted by: fat kid at April 28, 2005 02:35 PM (yHxMk)
Posted by: someone at April 28, 2005 02:45 PM (ZMAzf)
"Captain's Log (!?). I'll fulfill the prime directive alright. To boldly go where no man has gone before"
Cue Star Trek theme, fade to black.
Posted by: Joe Mama at April 28, 2005 02:46 PM (l4adY)
Posted by: Pseudarford at April 28, 2005 02:48 PM (Mxw5p)
Posted by: Captain James T. Kirk at April 28, 2005 02:56 PM (l4adY)
Posted by: Bones at April 28, 2005 02:58 PM (l4adY)
You know, that description fits me to a tee, but I'm no serial killer. Since I lack a consistent victim profile, I'm more of what you'd call a "spree killer."
Posted by: Sean M. at April 28, 2005 03:06 PM (e0H8j)
Posted by lauraw
That sucker is getting close to execution and Connecticut hasn't executed anyone in 45 years, so the ACLU and the usual panty-wetters are going ballistic that their Blue State could act like ...shudder...Texas..
Anyways, the NY newspapers ran a ton of stuff on Michael Ross recently. He was nabbed driving a light blue Toyota, not a Volkswagen.
The Star Trek predilictor is interesting. I wouldn't have expected that. Disney product, circuses, that sort of stuff....but not Star Trek. I wonder what other oddball predilictors of kiddie pervs exist. Maybe certain pets that work as lures to reel the kiddies in....
Posted by: Cedarford at April 28, 2005 04:48 PM (6krEN)
Taking in consideration puberty, correct. However, my implication was that adult pedos are familar with and own what their target age group is interested in. Instead of, "Do you want to come up and see my etchings?" -- it's, "Do you want to come up and see my Hello Kitty collection?" I mean, really, what do you think Neverland was all about? Child er*tica does not necessarily have to be of a sexual nature. It can be anything to lure a child into having sex. But, are kids even interested in Star Trek these days?
Okay. It won't let me submit. What is the naughty word here? Can't be pedo. How about er*tica?
Posted by: at April 28, 2005 05:10 PM (jJPIT)
Also what happened to the list of pedos the USA police kindly gave the UK law? a few high profile arrests of the rich and famous but what happened to the high ranking church, police and politicians? (just answered my own question there)
As Blair has been fucking all the UK for the last 7 years and some of our population is under 16 does that make him a pedo?
Posted by: chris Edwards at April 29, 2005 03:23 AM (BO37E)
As for not making a joke regarding my comments, I'm sorry if I rambled, but I read this story yesterday and it got my blood boiling. Add to that- my local paper announced (Sunday) that 22 teachers/school workers were convicted in the last 15 months of sexual abuse of a child- including child pornography. I just don't find much funny about this subject.
Posted by: carin at April 29, 2005 04:34 AM (hm6Dn)
Another car stereotype I have developed over time: people who drive light blue cars have mental problems.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 04:34 AM (kIPjn)
So what if these weirdoes had "some" passing interest in Star Trek?
I heard most of these offenders had ice cream in their freezers. You know what that means? People who like ice cream are more likely to be PEDOPHILES. Dun-dun-duhhhhh....(Creepy music ensues)
These guys all also had some blue button-up shirts in their closets. You know what THAT means? People who wear blue button-up shirts are more likely to be PEDOPHILES. Dun-dun-duhhhhh....(Creepy music continues)
Are folks clueing in yet?
JC on a PS, people. Star Trek has been wildly popular for close to 40 years, and not just with those into science fiction. It would be harder to find homes WITHOUT any Star Trek materials than it would be to find homes with them.
There's Zero causal relationship here, and the writer of this story was just projecting his own prejudice about Trekkies into this story.
And uh, please don't think I'm necessarily defending Trekkies here -- despite my geekiness, I'm not one -- but trying to link pedophilia with an interest in Star Trek is like trying to link cleptomania with a love for cheeseburgers.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 04:59 AM (qF8q3)
FYI, tickets for Epiosde III are on sale online for opening weekend, so those of you who used to wait in line for hours to buy tickets for such things don't have to.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 05:19 AM (qF8q3)
No way, bbeck. Nuh-uh.
I am certain that nobody in my family and no one I personally know has any of the stuff.
I think you're geekitude is clouding your judgment here.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 05:21 AM (/MV2K)
Posted by: at April 29, 2005 05:26 AM (/MV2K)
How dare you say that libertarian conservatives support pedophilia?
My view on stuff like pedophilia is actually more of a traditional "conservative" perspective, I think. I see it as an outgrowth of the inherent evil in some people rather than the result of environmental influences. I actually see the environmental stimuli cause/effect/justification theory and the "There Is Hope, and You Can Change, and Rehabillitation with Pharmaceuticals Can Help You" view as a "liberal" view (not that the label really matters or speak to the truth or falsity of the theory, I guess).
I can't really claim to be a libertarian, I'm probably more of a moderate who's a libertine. I don't want to have to build my own highway to get to work. I think that both extreme libertarians and extreme social cons are, to employ meyfavorite phrase, sitting in the corner rubbing shit in their hair. They're just doing it in different corners of the room.
Posted by: Hubris at April 29, 2005 05:28 AM (PwC+V)
As for Trekkies/child abuse link - I have no idea. Star Trek certainly didn't TURN 'em, so it doesn't bother me.
Posted by: carin at April 29, 2005 05:31 AM (hm6Dn)
Where this falls apart - is when you look at statistics regarding pedophiles (virtually all pedophiles were abused- although the reverse is not true.) I would say it is a direct result of environmental influences. But, experiences has taught us that it cannot be "undone." Once those sexual proclivities are created, they cannot be erased.
Posted by: carin at April 29, 2005 05:35 AM (hm6Dn)
Of course I overstated that, and my apologies.
Most people are abused by their own parents, so it's hard to separate out environment versus genetics (with the overlying dynamic of free will - we can overcome the influences of both, I think, and that's why the statistics don't go both ways as you pointed out). I like the description I read somewhere years ago: Trying to attribute a behavior solely to genetics or environment is like trying to say the area of a rectangle is entirely dependent on either its length or its width. I'd add free will and make it a rectangular prism, but that makes for a clumsier metaphor, I guess.
If you do feel that it's pretty much solely a result of childhood, I don't see where the porn/sexually permissive society argument fits in.
Posted by: Hubris at April 29, 2005 05:55 AM (oPB+M)
You may not be able to be classified as a Trekkie -- most people who have some ST in their homes aren't -- but I would bet you and/or your relatives have SOMETHING in your home that has to do with Star Trek; it just isn't intentional, and that's the point I'm making.
Furthermore, just because YOUR family doesn't have anything doesn't make it the norm.
And, I don't know who posted this, but...
I mean, the whole reason that trekkie conventions have become a comedy skit is because its considered a 'strange' set of people. Out of the ordinary, not common.
And they are "strange" to whom? The "normal," "common" people? The reason they're made fun of is because these cons are easy targets. It's not exactly tough to make fun of a grown up dressed as a Klingon...but you know, I really fail to see how that's any more 'strange' than having brunch in $100 shoes and a Gucci purse -- except that one is accepted by the "common" people and the other isn't, thanks to good marketing by the designers of accessories. Not only that, the former is something we can all make fun of (including the person dressed as a Klingon), and making fun of the latter would REALLY pi$$ some people off.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 06:00 AM (qF8q3)
they made up a Klingon language for cripes sake
Posted by: brak at April 29, 2005 06:25 AM (OuLOj)
Posted by: carin at April 29, 2005 06:28 AM (hm6Dn)
Sorry for any personal situation you went through.
I'm fine with civil disagreement on the issue, I respect your viewpoint.
Posted by: Hubris at April 29, 2005 06:35 AM (oPB+M)
Automatically classifying all Trekkies as being "obsessed" is simply ridiculous.
Your prejudice is is showing when you compare Trekkies with obsession and brand name-mongering as just "buying nice things."
You probably know and/or interact with Trekkies all the time. You just don't realize it because they're not wearing their silly uniforms.
Incidentally, new ST episodes/movies are still being made, so it's still part of popular culture.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 06:39 AM (qF8q3)
these mosters should be locked up for life on their first offense.
Posted by: reliapundit at April 29, 2005 06:41 AM (JKn8v)
when you say trekkie, i am thinking someone who is a big fan of the genre, probably spends time online discussing it, collects merchandise, maybe goes to the shows
I'll be honest, I've never met anyone like that. But $100 shoes isnt a big deal, and I just didnt think it was a valid comparison. Yeah, 40 pairs of $300 shoes and refusing to wear anything else, that's a snob problem. But I still don't think it holds up to a subset of people that spend a whole lot of time projecting themselves into a fantasy world. Whereas materialism and shallow snobbery is a part of the real world.
Posted by: brak at April 29, 2005 06:49 AM (OuLOj)
Posted by: roux at April 29, 2005 06:51 AM (vWhbj)
OK, I can see how somebody might have non-trekkie publications that may occasionally contain star trek references in it.
But no, I can't see any of us with trek stuff, definitely no computer stuff. You are more likely to find us in the garden if we're not working. I have a physically demanding job. Not a white collar in the lot of us. I stumbled upon the internet less than five years ago.
I don't think we are the poster child for Normal American Family, but in my asshole opinion, yes, I DO think there are more folks like me than there are trekkies out there.
I would not characterize anyone else as 'strange' for being a trekkie. I am not like that. Don't know where you are going with the Gucci thing.
But this unintentional possession of star trek stuff stuff is quite the leap to "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest."
Just having a TV Guide with Leonard Nimoy on the cover is not going to create this association in the mind of a detective who goes after pedophiles.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 06:54 AM (/MV2K)
The price alone wasn't quite what I meant, Brak. I associated the cost with the designer label, and I personally think it's whacked to overpay for something just because it has a certain NAME attached to it. And lots and lots of people do that. That's what I was talking about, so I hope we're on the same page there.
And yah, I would agree that there are Trekkies out there who go overboard...but it's a real minority of those who actually attend cons. I think we can agree that the folks running this web site...
...which I've posted before, are a few bushels short of a load.
I also think that women who coo over the latest Manolo Blahnik need to have their heads examined.
As for what you say here...
Whereas materialism and shallow snobbery is a part of the real world.
...I would disagree. It's not that there isn't materialism or snobbery, but people who believe they're better than others because they own certain things are living in a bigger fantasy world than Trekkies could ever imagine. Not only that, Trekkies KNOW that their world is fantasy, whereas snobs don't, so in a sense the Trekkies are healthier and more grounded...which seems pretty darn scary.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 07:06 AM (qF8q3)
While I have an interest in doing away with these monsters (reliapundit) I think it's also important that they are not "grown" in the first place. Of course, one of the ways to avoid it, is to break the cycle.
Posted by: carin at April 29, 2005 07:10 AM (f8BMi)
I would agree, but we're not talking about only the most immersed Trekkie, we're talking about people with, at the very least, a "passing interest," which could be classified as any number of things...hence my point. The Star Trek stuff that you have in your house may very well classify you as having a passing interest in it, depending on how it's defined.
All I have in my house related to Star Trek are some TOS movies, some of the hubs' computer games, and a box full of unused Starfleet Battles junk. Would that classify us as a "passing interest" or something more? Who knows.
"I would not characterize anyone else as 'strange' for being a trekkie. I am not like that. Don't know where you are going with the Gucci thing."
That was addressed to the anonymous post after yours.
"Just having a TV Guide with Leonard Nimoy on the cover is not going to create this association in the mind of a detective who goes after pedophiles."
Actually I think it would, because detectives are trained to look for any similarities and common interests. But, since "passing interest" isn't really defined here, that can be interpreted several ways.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 07:21 AM (qF8q3)
I used some punctuation around the word strange because I don't quite buy it. How about offbeat?
You're right that 'passing interest' is undefined.
But, I can't help arguing with you, no way is star trek as ubiquitous or mainstream as ice cream or cheeseburgers. IMAO again of course.
Not in a million years.
I guess what I would call the first indication of 'passing interest' in anything is if you have actively collected something for yourself and the theme was the reason why.
So, that Leonard Nimoy on a current TV Guide and some page 14 article in your local newspaper is no big deal and in fact unavoidable for everybody who has a subscription.
But if that TV Guide is from 3 years ago and is in a box with three other magazines all with trek pics on them, well there ya go. Passing interest.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 08:11 AM (/MV2K)
Not in a million years."
First of all, I was NOT saying that Star Trek is AS common as ice cream or cheeseburgers. Put in context, I was stating that there was no cause and effect in the relationship between pedophilia and Star Trek by drawing similar unrelated comparisons between demented behavior and interests that are common with lots of other people.
As for whether or not Star Trek is common: well, I think that the fact that the Star Trek franchise has produced some of the biggest grossing films of all time, has spawned several successful series, has exhibits in museums and an interactive museum in Las Vegas, has given today's lingo certain phrases such as "Beam me up, Scotty," and has had a space shuttle named after it -- just to name a few of its influences -- sort of proves my point. But hey, if you think all those billions and an undeniable impact on fields ranging from science to pop culture is due to a group of consumers that's not even close to being the majority, then there's no convincing you.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 10:05 AM (qF8q3)
On the other hand, I don't have any pins, "phasers," costumes, or Klingon language books. I've never been to a "con." I can probably name the show if you give me a rough outline of the plot, but I don't memorize "stardates," and I have no fucking idea what the energy output of a "warp drive" is. I don't want to BE a Trek character - I just like a couple of the shows.
That's where the line is, bbeck. A real "Trekkie" would look down on me and other people who are merely fans of the show - we aren't identified as part of their group.
And, as Hubris noted, there is a correlation between being a Trekkie and being strange in other ways. Of course putting on a costume or learning Klingon doesn't turn a man into a child molester - but it points to the fact that you're a pretty fuckin' weird guy. And child molesters are pretty fuckin' weird guys as well.
I'm sorry, but there's no bloody parallel between learning Klingon and buying a goddamn purse. What total BS.
Oh, and if you ever find a pair of Gucci shoes for $100 that aren't factory rejects, used, or covered in paint and/or dog crap? Call me. I wouldn't mind paying less than a fifth of what I usually do.
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 10:12 AM (jBXwy)
Uh, Megan, you don't have to tell ME where the line is between ST fan and Trekkie. I've known where it's been for 30 years. I'm not one, either.
Here's how those of us who know really define it...
A Trekkie runs after Mr. Spock.
A Trekker walks after Mr. Spock.
A Star Trek fan says, "Hey, was that Leonard Nimoy?"
"I'm sorry, but there's no bloody parallel between learning Klingon and buying a goddamn purse. What total BS."
You're right. Buying an overpriced purse is MUCH more moronic. Silly me.
"Oh, and if you ever find a pair of Gucci shoes for $100 that aren't factory rejects, used, or covered in paint and/or dog crap? Call me. I wouldn't mind paying less than a fifth of what I usually do."
I don't waste my time looking for such things. I do things like, oh, spending time with friends instead and spending my extra money on others. Once again, silly me.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 10:20 AM (qF8q3)
If any of my posts came off as hostile, I apologize. There was no such intent.
Are either of you natural redheads, or did you convert?
OK, that may have been a little catty, there.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 10:45 AM (/MV2K)
Everybody abandons this thread and leaves me, the thread-killer, twisting unattractively in the wind, the last unanswered post.
I'm used to it.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 10:51 AM (/MV2K)
Posted by: Guy Dupree at April 29, 2005 10:54 AM (kUNrb)
people who like nice clothes/shoes= the real morons
i see, it always comes back to high school
Posted by: brak at April 29, 2005 10:57 AM (OuLOj)
1. This is all so fucking dumb
2. Brak pretty much summed things up already.
Then again, that holier-than-thou condescension is still annoying me. Slightly.
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 11:16 AM (jBXwy)
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 11:21 AM (/MV2K)
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 11:22 AM (jBXwy)
Posted by: brak at April 29, 2005 11:22 AM (OuLOj)
Me and Guy at least are still on the sidelines waiting for the hair-pulling to start.
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 11:22 AM (ycKg/)
Posted by: hobgoblin at April 29, 2005 11:24 AM (2da3S)
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 11:30 AM (/MV2K)
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 11:30 AM (ycKg/)
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 11:33 AM (jBXwy)
*Sound of retreating footsteps, door slams shut.*
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 11:35 AM (ycKg/)
NB: for executive summary, see brak's post, cited above.
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 11:41 AM (jBXwy)
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 11:45 AM (/MV2K)
Posted by: brak at April 29, 2005 11:46 AM (OuLOj)
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 11:49 AM (ycKg/)
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 11:50 AM (jBXwy)
Posted by: hobgoblin at April 29, 2005 11:52 AM (2da3S)
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 12:03 PM (/MV2K)
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 12:03 PM (jBXwy)
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 12:11 PM (/MV2K)
Can't believe that hadn't occurred to me until now. I'll go get a shot of Lagavulin to ease the pain. (Oh no! Another overpriced product of our dastardly brand-obsessed culture!)
[smooch] Thanks, darlin'. You're a peach.
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 12:13 PM (jBXwy)
Just glad there aren't any clumps of my hair on the ground.
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 12:18 PM (/MV2K)
The funniest trekie movie was on last night -Galaxy Quest ... I stayed up 'till midnight watching it.
The DVD has an alien language soundtrack. Watching it in the alien language with English subtitles is fun.
Posted by: Anachronda at April 29, 2005 12:24 PM (IrbU4)
Batgirl: "But I'm no ordinary woman, Batman."
Posted by: Thumper at April 29, 2005 12:54 PM (pRtzm)
Batman: "No, but she's a woman, Robin, with a woman's inborn desire to outsmart men."
Posted by: Cherry Blossom at April 29, 2005 12:55 PM (pRtzm)
Batgirl: "Tea leaves, stars, crystal gazing. All part of a woman crimefighter's arsenal, Batman."
Posted by: Hugo at April 29, 2005 12:56 PM (pRtzm)
people who like nice clothes/shoes= the real morons
i see, it always comes back to high school
Is that the limit of your ability to comprehend ANY of what I've said?
FYI, I never said that.
But, as you've demonstrated, you're going to believe what you want to believe.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 01:21 PM (qF8q3)
You just wrecked my theory that I can kill any aging comment thread with three Batman quotes in a row.
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 01:27 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 01:29 PM (jBXwy)
Sorry, I'm not going to wade thru all the PMSing, so you wasted your time on my account...but it does appear you picked up a cheerleader or two.
OTOH, I WILL re-post a couple of lines I already wrote:
It's not exactly tough to make fun of a grown up dressed as a Klingon...but you know, I really fail to see how that's any more 'strange' than having brunch in $100 shoes and a Gucci purse -- except that one is accepted by the "common" people and the other isn't, thanks to good marketing by the designers of accessories. Not only that, the former is something we can all make fun of (including the person dressed as a Klingon), and making fun of the latter would REALLY pi$$ some people off. (Emphasis added)
I also think that women who coo over the latest Manolo Blahnik need to have their heads examined.
Trekkies KNOW that their world is fantasy, whereas snobs don't, so in a sense the Trekkies are healthier and more grounded...which seems pretty darn scary.
Gee, that makes me look awfully prescient, eh?.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 01:32 PM (qF8q3)
No worries, Laura. You and I just disagree. And Megan's 'thing' is to come off as the junkyard dog, so she doesn't offend either.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 01:35 PM (qF8q3)
Be careful, though; too many Batman references just may turn you into "f'ing weird." If you were quoting Star Trek, you'd already be there.
And Hob, knock it off! Only men are allowed to do that to me.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 01:39 PM (qF8q3)
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 01:51 PM (pRtzm)
The batman quotes would be fine if they, y'know, pertained to anything being discussed on the thread in any way shape or form.
And I'll admit my shoes cost $100 + (not much, really), but hiking boots and Black Cats aren't cheap and they last for years.
bbeck, really what you're saying is that the concept of monetary value is a fiction. I don't know if people who "buy into" that delusion are "abnormal"
Sure money's fake, but it's all we got. That why everyone should exchange as much useless currency for brass, lead and gunpowder at the soonest possible opportunity
Posted by: hobgoblin at April 29, 2005 02:29 PM (2da3S)
Is that really so wrong?
Posted by: hobgoblin at April 29, 2005 02:30 PM (2da3S)
"Look, Mommy! I annoyed Sally down at the playground and she beat the living shit out of me! And I knew she'd do that all along! Aren't I smart?"
Um. Sure, honey. Let's go back in the house and put some iodine on that, mmkay?
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 02:34 PM (jBXwy)
Hey, I did my best. You think I wasn't kinda hoping to see everything that photo didn't show?
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 02:37 PM (jBXwy)
isn't that cute
oh, I mean hawt (as in hot l3sbian action)
[now l3sbian's on the spamword list, jeez. why not just say we can't type "fuck")
Posted by: hobgoblin at April 29, 2005 02:43 PM (2da3S)
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 02:44 PM (jBXwy)
Niiiice backhanded jab toots. Just pointy enough to barely sting, then a cold compress at the very end.
F'n beautiful. Can I be your protege?
Posted by: lauraw at April 29, 2005 03:40 PM (HoSBk)
No, Hob, it just creeps me out when you sound so much like my husband.
Um. Sure, honey. Let's go back in the house and put some iodine on that, mmkay?
And aw, Megan, I'm so sorry the first limp, "I'm sorry, but was that supposed to be a f***ing joke?" lacked the ability to intrigue. But thanks for not launching into another novella of unrestrained *itchiness to prove how o so tough you are.
F'n beautiful. Can I be your protege?
Why Laura sweetie, I don't think you need ANY lessons in the ol' backhand!
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 05:15 PM (qF8q3)
Listen up, people:
Good invective isn't personal abuse. It's abuse, yes, but it isn't personal. What I wrote to bbeck could, and indeed would have been written to Ace, KCTrio, Allah, or anyone else who made the same remarks she did: my "novella" was provoked solely by the idiocy of her thoughts and not her person.
Therefore (unless the circumstances are exceptional or the rhetoric demands it) I rarely make any comments about the specific person I'm addressing. Those whom I truly despise (Cedarford, for instance) I don't even bother to address.
This is why I can chew out bbeck in one post and compliment her breasts in two other posts, effectively bracketing it.
Yet a number of people (BillINDC, Jeff G, and most recently, bbeck) can't seem to have an argument without snarking back in some boring "flamewar" mode. Their tone, and the way in which they attempt to counterattack, is remarkably similar.
"You're a dried-up internet hag looking for attention"
"She's just trying to prove she can run with the big boys"
"Looking for a gold star from Ace"
"Territorial sorority girl"
"You're obsessed with me and you try to act like a junkyard dog"
"were to prove how o so tough you are"
Honestly. Are you all so destitute of arguments that you feel the need to descend to the exact same boring ad hominem routine each and every time someone rips on what you've said?
Argue the fuckin' substance, morons. Even if every word every one of you has ever said to or about me were true - every word - all it would mean is that you've all been hauled out and strung up to dry by a bitchy, ugly, attention-seeking loser of a territorial sorority girl suffering from more delusional mental conditions and venereal diseases than y'all could shake a stick at, who lives and breathes on her obsession with Ace, or alternately, your utterly fascinating selves.
Now I'm confused: is this supposed to make you look good?
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 05:42 PM (jBXwy)
I don't do this for a living.
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 05:59 PM (pRtzm)
Long and short of it:
This thing is just burning rubber.
You disagree with me.
And I don't care.
There are no variations of "stinky poopyhead" you can come up with to make me care.
And that, as they say, is that.
Now, Ace tends to get tired of threads when all they do is deteriorate into mere flaming. I tend not to indulge except when I can make it fun, but when it gets redundant (or in this case, I don't want to slog through a borefest) then I get nervous that Ace is going to come along and tell us to STFU, which I've seen him do.
So, I'm going to take Michael's advice and start quoting Batman before Ace comes here and does just that. I suggest you give it a try, too.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 06:35 PM (qF8q3)
The only Batman quotes I can come up with are...
"How much do you weigh?"
...and he asked Vicki Vale that, which just wasn't right.
I haven't seen any of the Batman movies for a while.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 06:39 PM (qF8q3)
Except you do care, because respond (well, reply, at least) you do. Every time.
With "You want attention" instead of "You're wrong and here's why" ("stinky poopyhead" optional).
I'm saying that's a stupid way to reply, and it's fucking boring. Everyone's done it before, so find something new to say or don't say anything at all.
I'm not saying there's some grand intellectually redeeming value to this stupid thread. I'm saying that calling someone who disagrees with you names is not a fucking argument.
Because whether I'm "burying myself" or not, your ideas are still shit, your comparisons are still false, and your indictment of capitalism is still downright bizarre.
And people who speak Klingon are still fucking daft.
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 06:51 PM (jBXwy)
Holy Schmoly. You don't think I've been dishing up the Batman quotes from memory, do you? That's just creepy. They're available on a lot of web sites. I've mostly been culling them from http://members.tripod.com/~AdamWest/quips1.htm
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 07:31 PM (pRtzm)
Before I go to bed, I just wanted to mention that "Well, whoop-dee-fucking-doo" was pretty much the high point of my day.
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 07:37 PM (pRtzm)
I just read up higher where you were quoting in another thread, too.
So, is it better to quote Batman or to defend Cedarford?
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 07:37 PM (qF8q3)
On the other hand, when Hobgoblin tells you that your carefully selected Batman quotes are "fucking annoying," you just want to go hide in a cave.
Screw Hob. He's just another freaking lawyer. Way too many lawyers on this site.
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 07:50 PM (pRtzm)
Man, and I thought I had a shitty Friday.
Posted by: Megan at April 29, 2005 08:12 PM (jBXwy)
Yeah, but you have to admit his timing was impeccable.
Posted by: bbeck at April 29, 2005 08:14 PM (qF8q3)
LOL. It was.
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2005 08:48 PM (pRtzm)
62 queries taking 1.4682 seconds, 356 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.