?

Log in

No account? Create an account
writer's block

Fear and Loathing in America

22 Years Old
writer's block
solo1y

This is an article I wrote for the The Gazette (UCC Student's Union paper), published on October 24, 1996. I've transcribed it below because I am terrible at taking photos.


So, you've come to UCC. Big, isn't it? Well, if you were awake and functional for any part of Freshers Week, you might have gone on a tour, whose misguided aim is to familiarise the uninitiated with the more familiar landmarks of the campus.
UCC - AN UNDERGROUND TOUR
These tend to be like shoeboxes in external appearance, and either hospitals or solicitors offices in internal content. What these tours don't show you is the real UCC - the UCC that you only become fully aware of around mid-second year. This is where I come in. Read and observe.
(i) E-mail computers. OK, so they might have told you about these computers, located on E2 (directly underneath E3). What they didn't tell you was thatthis is ina excellent place to meet foreign chicks and guys, as they seem to hog the terminals all day. Which makes one think - if they're so busy spending all day e-mailing their friends in their country of origin, why don't they just go home? That way, legitimate users like me coiuld play some games.
(ii) The toilets on E2. Yes, we are still on the same floor, and we've just gone into the toilets. Before going ot college, toliets were no doubt thought of as places of quiet reflection where one could answer the call of nature in peace. Not so in coklege. Toilets in college are topical fourms for olitical and social debate. The favourite topic of the toilets of E2 is the old homosexual / heterosexual thing. Classic quote from cubicle 2: "I get randy when I see secondary school boys." To this, some concerned citizen had replied: "What about secondary school girls?"So, if you have a burning wish to express a controversial opinion, sod the Philosoph and head for the nearest toilet with a black marker quick smart.
(iii) A-Block. Sure, we all know how to get to A-Block. But what if it's raining at the time? Or if there's someone outside you don't want to meet because you were drunk at the time and they think they're in love with you? Fear not, for legend has it that there is a way to get to A-Block from E-Block without going outside! The legend goes someway towards explaining the average puny quotient of food scientists.
(iv) Computer Science Faculty. Part of college which is in charge of teaching students how to be arrogant about being able to use a computer. Typical conversation (overheard):
"Well, will you look at that?"
"What?"
"The number 8 is 1,000 is binary."
"Weirdness."
(v) Q-1. This one is very suspicious. The only thing of use available here is the Spike Milligan back catalogue. Therefore we can only assume that this is the nuclear bunker which will house Michael Mortell and Aidan Moran should a nuclear war present itself. They must have read our minds.
Join me next week when I'll be revealing reasons why most students have no lives.


The red line is the line most people took from E-Block to A-Block. The green line is the secret corridor to travel between these blocks in the rain. The green star is where the computer science people were, mostly congregating on the fourth floor.

On-line Christian Soldiers
writer's block
solo1y

Chapter 1: syetenb

WARNING: What follows is the very essence of TL;DR. You may actually be slightly less intelligent after reading all of it. No one should do so. There is one confirmed case of a poor American girl who read this whole page, and now all she can read is Dan Brown books. In an Australian accent. Don't be like Becky. Do not read this page.

There follows an exact transcript, without any editing, of an email I sent to syetenb in 2007, master of a website which proves god exists. I'm posting this now because of a long debate Sye had with Matt Dillahunty last week which makes total mincemeat of everything Sye stands for.

The only alterations are as follows: numbers inserted by me refer to the notes at the bottom; some formatting HTML so the words don't all run together, mainly the addition of line breaks; and the italicisation of all syetenb's remarks, to make it easier to tell apart our respective contributions. This email was the last email that was sent in our exchange. During this exchange it was made clear that we gave permission for our words to be reproduced, so I'm not doing something behind his back. I was given to understand that he put my stuff on some Christian website for others to discuss, but I have no evidence of this.



Sye,
Is it universally true that 1 + 1 = 10 in the binary system, or is it arbitrary? Is it universally true that if you add 2 OBJECTS to 2 OBJECTS, you get 4 OBJECTS, or is it arbitrary?
Well now you're just playing around with words. I managed to prove your theory incorrect*1, and you're grasping at straws. Just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

How do you account for universal truth, and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview? You see, each of these are only steps to the proof on my site, yet each demonstrates the inconsistency of your position.
I don't agree with that at all.

Well, it would show the absurdity of your position, but no, I want you tell me if you believe that only things which can be demonstrated to be true are valid beliefs. (as the question states).
You're asking if the only things which can be demonstrated to be true are valid beliefs. Well, if you regard valid beliefs as necessarily true, thenyes.*2

Alright, what is the evidence that your ability to reason is valid?
I went through this before with you, on the site.*3 The ability to reason we have is the only one we have to work with. If you show me some other system with which to compare it, maybe I could see what you're trying to get at.

You are the one who said that the steps to my proof had other options, this is the FOURTH time I am asking you to provide them, since you won't, it is glaringly obvious that you can't. By the way, I can easily point to options you have missed. For instance, you neglected to include in your first step "I believe that God created everything out of nothing."*4
No, that option is covered with "I believe that things can be created out of nothing." Are you coming to realise the answer to your own question yet?

Your argument is that the steps to my proof have other options, yet you provide exactly zero.*5
No, I think we're getting around to it. If I just told you the answer you're looking for, you wouldn't understand. You have to be brought to see it for yourself. You're getting there though. As you can see above.

I don't blame you one bit for not wanting others to see your arguments.*6 I would be more than happy to have these e-mails posted, but I understand why you do not. Quite simply I have asked questions that you cannot answer according to your worldview. Let me summarize:
I really don't care where you post these emails. You have my permission to do so.

1. Is it universally true that 1 + 1 = 10 in the binary system, or is it arbitrary?
The adoption of a binary system in the first place is arbitrary.*7 Try to focus - stay on track.

2. Is it universally true that if you add 2 OBJECTS to 2 OBJECTS, you get 4 OBJECTS, or is it arbitrary?
Hmm. I can think of cases where that would not be true.*8 So I guess it's arbitrary.

3. Do you believe that only things which can be demonstrated to be true are valid beliefs.
I don't accept that what you're asking is a valid question.*9

4. How do you account for universal truth, and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
I don't. Things are what they are.*10

5. What is the evidence that your ability to reason is valid?
That's not a valid question.*11

6. What are the other options to the steps to my proof, which you claim exist?
I'm bringing you around to them with each email. You're doing very well. Don't panic.*12

You can continue to play the dodge and weave game and avoid my questions, but I will not tolerate your attempts to do so much longer.
Tolerate?*13 You emailed me, Sye. I don't care about converting you to atheism. I don't care if you never believe what I believe. I have no intention of trying to convince you that I am right. I think most atheists are like that. They really don't care. It only becomes a problem when a religious belief causes governments to disobey their own laws, or when government funds are used to pay for religious agendae, etc. I don't believe in god, any kind of god. I think the world we have is the one we've got, and we should probably worry about this one instead of worrying about what's going to happen after we die.

But you know, you believe that Jesus can remove the stain of sin from your soul, or whatever, and well done you for that. Hope that whole thing works out.

Thing is, people who do not collect stamps,*14 do not make list of myths regarding the religion of non-stamp collecting!
That's because people who do not collect stamps are not subject to the same level of ignorance and stupidity as atheists are.

Nice try though.

Barry

*1In trying to provide an example of something that was universally true, syetenb made the fatal mistake of using 2 + 2 = 4 as an example. 2 + 2 = 4 only makes sense if you accept a decimal system, which people have done seemingly for no other reason than we have ten fingers.
*2Here, I demonstrate how syetenb was begging the question, despite the way this question was phrased. If you express X in terms of X, you're really not moving anywhere. If you read what he's asking carefully, you'll see what I mean. It's one of the first things you learn in philosophy 101.
*3This refers to an earlier, protracted posting session onon an Irish message board (now defunct) which turned quite nasty pretty early on. He, and his partner in Christ, A*4*J were making all sorts of strange claims and becoming irritated when their arguments were disproven. Eventually A*4*J stopped posting, and syetenb was banned from the site for trolling. Unfortunately, there are no penalties for trolling in real life.
*4I don't know where he got this one from. I state quite clearly in my proof that the option for creating yourself is included. Maybe he doesn't know what ex nihilo means.
*5I didn't tell him that he neglected to include an option for some things being completely true some of the time. I honestly didn't think he would understand. My hope was that I could get him to see it himself. A quick check of his site reveals that he has not yet taken account of such an obvious omission.
*6Like note 4, I have no idea where he got this. I never told him I didn't want anyone to see what I wrote. My response confirmed that position as clearly as I could.
*7Well, it is. He was searching for some absolute truth, and as I found counter-examples, he kept moving the goalposts. It's a big field, but eventually he would run out of places to move them.
*8For instance, holes. Or raindrops.
*9This question he was asking is utterly nonsensical. It's the equivalent of asking if you think reason is reasonable, or if whiteness is white. It looks like a real question but it's completely meaningless. From our exchanges on the message board, I think syetenb honestly believes that if you ask someone a question that has no answer and they don't answer it, you've achieved some sort of debating victory.
*10I am indebted to Ludwig Wittgenstein for this elegant and often stunning rebuttal of some of the more insane theories of reality or knowledge.
*11Again, he's asking me how I know reason is reasonable. Which is like asking how I know a triangle has three sides. It's a triangle because it has three sides. Argh! Even several months later, in these footnotes, I'm getting frustrated that people this retarded are allowed to live.
*12Sadly, this was the last email in the exchange. As I noted above, he has not changed his site to adjust for reality. Even Alan Greenspan has now acknowledged that his model of reality had a fundamental flaw.
*13I was becoming more frustrated, as you can see, with the advanced retardation with which I was being regularly presented, masquerading as debate. This was one email, folks. One out of fuck knows how many. And I read them all. His use of the word "tolerate" seemed especially patronising, and frankly mysterious, as he emailed me first.
*14This was a reference to an analogy I made about those who regard atheism as "just another religion". I made the point that atheism could only be another religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps was a hobby. He almost made a valid point here, but fell at the last fence of logic.


There's more

Apparently this guy is a professional troll. On a whim, I put his name into Google, and discovered this same guy trolling: James Randi's forums, where he had his ass handed to him; Free Thought Forums; and even some Christian Forums! In every one, he presents the same broken arguments. Every time, several people try to explain where he's going wrong, and every time he either refuses to accept their arguments or just ignores them. Other people who have noticed the passage of this troll through their field of influence include this guy and this guy. I'm starting to think that he has some psychological problem, given that he seems to be annoying every single person he comes across online. Furthermore, his condescending attitude seems to be in direct opposition to the amount of posters who regularly prove him incorrect. Does he really believe that he's right and everyone else is wrong? Very possibly. If so, then he should be pitied rather than disdained, and maybe Christianity is the best place for him.

I'll let Stephen Law, editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy and senior lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, have the final word: bullshit.


Gareth Hanrahan's Guide To deadEarth
writer's block
solo1y


In 2000, my friend Gareth Hanrahan came across a new role-playing game. He was not pleased. His review of that game has gone down in international role-playing history as one of the funniest things ever written on the subject. It's also a very handy Guide To How Not To Write A Roleplaying Game.

If you have any interest in role-playing, or funny things, or cool people, feel free to follow Gareth on Twitter. Any oddness in terms of formatting is because I cut and paste it from a website into Notepad and then into LiveJournal. I'll fix the formatting later. Just read it now.


*****MYTHOLDER'S GUIDE TO dEADEARTH*****

I went, I saw (it's quite a nice site, technically speaking), and I downloaded the deadEarth player's guide and the deadEarth's GM's guide. This entire review is based on material found in them - I didn't bother looking at the rest of the site. I guess this review could count as a derivative work, and as the book says "You do not have the right to create derivative works of or makea profit via deadEarth without the prior expressed written consent of Anarchy inK Corporation. If you disagree, feel free to fuck off!"

So, anyway, here's something "something new, fresh and different", to quote spamboy. Y'know, I wouldn't dream of posting something like this if you morons hadn't spammed the Blue Planet forum.

The Player's Guide
Ooh. 51 pages long. Cunningly, it's actually only about 25 pages long. The pages use two text columns, but they only put text in one of the columns on each page. And they alternate which column has text in it each page.

Stop the revolution, I want to get off.
Read More FunnyCollapse )

Star Trek Fan Fiction Fan Fiction
writer's block
solo1y
.1.
Here's something you might already know - your government is lying to you.

"But wait a minute," you reasonably interject, "how can you know what country I'm in or what my government is doing?"

Well, you deluded sap, this is part of the lie. If you are living in the year 2014, then your government is either directly (through force) or indirectly (through an increasingly organised series of incentives) run by the United States. Your biggest nightmare has come true.

Maybe you don't care. You probably shouldn't. Maybe the overt or covert American forces piloting your country's economy are doing a better job than your homegrown weasels could ever do. You don't know.

.2.
 I'm 38 years old in what you know as the year 2014. This means that during my formative years, during the last half of secondary school and the first half of my university education, there was a show called Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST: TNG) flying into our television sets every Saturday.

I have not seen all the episodes. I've seen most of the first season, when they had a blonde girl in charge of security, and I've seen most of the second season, with the weird doctor no one liked, and a smattering of episodes from the remaining five seasons . I haven't seen any of the TNG movies, although I started watching the new reboot, with the young actors and the lens flare. I wish I had paid more attention.

.3.
The first thing I remember after coming out of the box is Commander William Riker and Lieutenant Worf of the Starship Enterprise NCC-1701-D pointing phasers at me, accompanied by two nobodies. I pointed at their red shirts and said the first thing that popped into my head, which was, "You guys should be extra careful today; I have a feeling you might end up dead."

In retrospect, it is entirely understandable why they took this as a hostile threat and strong-armed me through familiar corridors and a turbolift to the brig.

Read 45 more tiny chapters...Collapse )

"... come in... and say this shit to my face..."
writer's block
solo1y

Chilton Nix

The tl;dr tale of one man's journey through Hipster Film Appreciation 101

(this will take some time)

Diane is a friend of mine. We both like movies and we talk about them all the time. One day, this happened:



I unintentionally misspelled his name, but whatever. The point is that I wouldn't be able to take anything he says seriously, because "Chilton Nix" would be written beside it. I realise this makes me shallow and possibly OCD, but I think it's important to be honest about these things. Then this happened:



and, presumably by way of explanation, this:



Everything's going fine so far. I like movies and I like talking about movies and Diane knows this, so co-opting me like this is not a big deal. What's the worst that can happen? The worst that can happen...



You don't need to read all of that; in fact I recommend, for the sake of your sanity, the most cursory of skims. The original David Lynch clip is 30 seconds long and consists entirely of him complaining that you can't see a movie properly on your iPhone. This would seem to be obvious, but it sparked a "debate" because of the inveterate pseudo-intellectual hipsterdom of everyone. I tried blowing it open, but the very act of engaging these people means that I was dragged down to their level. Whatever. I don't mind slumming it every so often. Then (!):



I have no idea where he got the idea that I was "sticking up for Diane". The only conclusion that I can come to is that he only read the bits where I was making fun of his name and skipped everything else. In movie discussions, as all over the internet, as in life, you should never hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Also, there's a time when you should stop trying to use intimidation as a debate tactic, and that time is your tenth birthday.

Then, he sent me a private message:



I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen. Luckily, I have many years experience of smacking down assholes. Maybe he would learn his lesson and quit poking the bear. Also, I realise the beatnik/hipster thing was lame, but I didn't have time to prepare. Don't worry, it gets better:



"Come into Barnes & Noble and say that shit to my face." That's probably the high point of this entire exchange. So, unless you're a completist who finds the DVD extras of Adam Sandler movies fascinating, you can now return to your usual programming and thanks for reading.

Anticipating the possibility of his return, I had some time to prepare some better material, as you can see. I wanted to say "geography teacher" when it was pointed out to me by a concerned citizen that the phrase "geography teacher" did not carry with it the same sense of outdated gaucheness that it does in my part of the world. So I switched it, with reluctance, to "gauche history lecturer". I don't know why I bothered; he probably doesn't even know what "gauche" means. Well, maybe in the back of my mind I was planning this page. Then this:



He linked me to his blog. He claims below that "it gets sent automatically", which is odd because it wasn't "sent automatically" with every other message. So I think he's lying. I think he wanted me to see his book blog so I would be blown away by how clever he is. Well, maybe if I was prepared to deal with the sloppy grammar, spelling, syntax and catastrophic style.

So I suggested some ways to improve the thing. It's easier to read things when you don't have to machete your way through a jungle of badly-written sentences. I also offered to re-write it (without touching the content), something which I was absolutely prepared to do. Then this:



He's made the classic "They laughed at Galileo" error, which is the upshot of his fourth paragraph. Yes, they did laugh at Galileo; but Galileo wasn't a genius because people were laughing at him. In the same way, making something unreadable doesn't make it clever.

James Joyce often wrote a kind of inspired gibberish, but he had an encyclopedic vocabulary, and a fundamental understanding of how language works. Chilton is no James Joyce: he just writes regular gibberish. I offered him five specifically-tailored ways to immediately improve his blog, but they would work as well for any, including my own (I have been known to throw an ellipsis in where it was in no way required).

Also, it's kind of cute that he doesn't know what "hipster" means. That's a sign that someone's a hipster, by the way. They'll either viciously deny it, or, "What does 'hipster' mean anyway?" We need to spread these tips around the internet so we can learn to spot them in the wild.



Now this is where it went weird. He wants me to help with his film project. But he frames this request by trashing my friend Diane in a remarkably petty and bitter fashion. He proudly told to "go fuck herself", and apparently she's "a little freak" and "too Aspergery". Ironically, there are two Aspergery people on this page, and neither of them is Diane.

Whatever comedy value he had was now lost. I don't really care what he said about me, because I can make jokes about it - but I don't have much time for trashing people who can't aren't part of the conversation. If I have something to say, I'll say it to you directly (as this thread proves). Accordingly, I sent Diane these screencaps and blocked and deleted Chilton Nix. As he probably Googles himself nightly, he'll see this as soon as it loads into the Google cache, so I'll post any outraged dumbass emails I get, should he be stupid enough to present his hindquarters for another word-whippin'.

Fake Word of the Day XIV
writer's block
solo1y
An occasional series where I take something for which there is no word and invent a word for it.

fobbogy - a forced apology that was the result of so much background arm-twisting that it almost sounds sincere.

onine - of, or pertaining to, onions.

shumfle - anything you do to reduce the noise level of your bathroom activities (esp. when in someone else's house).

frip - the sudden, small shot of comfort and security you feel when you look at your fuel gauge and it's on F.

trine - someone on a reality show who's not there to make friends.

jinket - someone who, when asked to explain something, uses song lyrics instead of just telling you.

fauxla (pr. Foe-la) - anything that conspicuously isn't Coca-Cola.

chone - to make the same typo more than four times.

irrelibint - someone who appears on otherwise serious television (esp. political talk shows) for no other reason than because she is pretty.

wen-wen - the unnecessary bit before the start, or after the end, of a pop music track.

parsemious - descriptive of something that looks like it should be a word, but turns out not to be.

remorse code - the series of circumlocutions and euphemisms you only use when talking about something you've done that you're ashamed of.

Related: If you like this sort of thing, you might like Fake Word of the Day XIII, which contains links to all the other Fake Word of the Day pages.

"Cocaine-addled paedophile"
writer's block
solo1y

Mike Perkins


Chapter 1: Fraud, Cocaine and Paedophiles


I have a friend called Andrea. She is a music teacher. The man who taught her music is called Mike Perkins. Mike feels an affinity with her because they both share an interest in music and teaching it to others. One fine Facebook day, Andrea posted a status update asking if she should pursue her university studies or further her music qualifications.




This screencap has been edited, but only to take out posts by other people.


As you can see, I humorously suggested that she should give up music entirely as it was a waste of her time (the joke being that she already makes a successful living from it, and presumably could only do even better if she chose to follow that road). Mike then chose to poke his humourless oar in * and take everything seriously. So seriously that he had to list his material possessions and the precise specifications of his plasma television ("42 inch panasonic 400 Hz").

Now, in my time I've had to deal with a fairly broad cross-section of people who make this world a worse place. Some of them blindly follow religion. Some of them are well-meaning but just misguided in a few very specific areas. Some of them are actively trying to hurt other people. And others are just morons who haven't thought anything through but still insist on developing strong opinions. If this page teaches us nothing more, let it be this: You should never develop strong opinions about things you don't understand.

It's been my experience that each of these categories of people are not open to reason, or any sort of correction. If attempts are made to explain the error, they will incorrectly interpret this as an invitation to a debate, and hence a validation of their stupid opinions (as Richard Dawkings said about refusing to debate Creationists: "It would look very good on their résumé; not so good on mine").

Accordingly, there are two strategies for dealing with these people, and you will see me execute these strategies all over the internet: 1. Assume that the bonkers opinion is true, and take it to its logical conclusion (the hope being that the person will be confronted with the stupidity of his opinion in a more direct fashion). 2. Ironic sarcasm leveraged with hyperbole and ridicule.

As a career in music is a perfectly reasonable option, the former strategy was denied me, and so I was forced into the second option. I first suggested that his hostile, aggressive and excessively materialistic attitude was the result of too much cocaine, which I assumed he would understand as a joke, because I know nothing at all about him - certainly not enough to be able to arrive at such a conclusion with any authority. And yet in his next message ("I have never taken drugs") he handed me that authority! He took it seriously! I had incorrectly assumed that accusing him of being a cocaine fiend would be ridiculous enough. Well, what's worse than being a cocaine fiend? Being a paedophile! So in my next post, I accused him both of being a paedophile (based on something he said about being friends with Andrea when she was 10 years old), and that Mike Perkins wasn't his real name. Surely now he would understand that I'm not actualling accusing him of anything?

That didn't happen. He took my accusations of paedophilia seriously, although he seems to not have noticed the allegation of fraud. What the hell was I supposed to do now? I'd never come across someone that utterly defeated me before. I had signalled that I was joking in as clear a manner as I could (although in retrospect maybe I should have accused him of bombing the World Trade Center), so I gave up. That's right. For the first time ever I actually gave up. I told him I was just fucking with him (post number eight in the linked thread) and that I was sure he's lovely, and also how I thought the accusation of grooming should have been enough to understand what I was doing. This should really have been the end of everything. What happened next is what catapulted Mike Perkins from run-of-the-mill idiot onto a shelf high above all our heads, for which we need a whole new word.

He refused to accept my retraction. Despite the fact that I said in plain English that I was fucking with him, he continued to post as though I were still genuinely accusing him of being a cocaine-addled paedophile. I had completely lost interest in the thread at this point; I honestly thought his answer was going to be something like "Oh. Well, sorry. But you're still an asshole. LOL." or something like that. I didn't consider for a second that the following level of retardation was even possible in another human being.

The rest of the thread is me attempting to underline my retraction and attempting to explain why it was funny. I don't like explaining my jokes, but sometimes the explanation can be funnier than the actual joke. And for the remainder of the thread, he continues to not get it, either wilfully, or because he honestly doesn't understand.

That was a few months ago. Skip ahead to July 2, 2011, when this wonderful exchange occurred:




This screencap has not been edited in any way. This started with him putting the movie Sucker Punch into Andrea's "top 3 films of all time" without consulting her, and by regarding someone rapping over a Queen track as "awesome". I echoed the consensus opinion that it's not very good, but you might like it if you want your movies to look like video games.




This screencap has not been altered in any way - and thank fuck I took this when I did, because the whole thread went into weird mode straight afterwards. You can see there are differences. My first thought was that he deleted his message to make things worse for me. But then I looked at it again, and one of my messages is gone too (the one with the fantastic line about One Tree Hill)! And I know I sure as hell didn't delete that slice of comedy gold. As Andrea was clearly not online at the time, a more reasonable explanation would be that whatever Facebook glitch caused my post to disappear probably also caused Mike's post to disappear. Sadly, this logic escaped Mike Perkins, who soon after threatening me with legal action and all sorts of racist whiny gibberish, sent this seemingly triumphalist message to me as a personal Facebook message:






"It hasn't gone. It's right here right now." He is clearly under the impression that I deleted my message. He hasn't noticed that his own message is missing too! I should probably take it as a compliment that he's paying attention to everything I say to the exclusion of everything else around him, including his own contributions. And although he says with a hilarious attempt at menace that it's "off to a few other people as well", he actually sent me the same message five times, so I was seriously entertaining the possibility that he had made some sort of mistake. Then this appeared on my Facebook home page:






I'm imagining Mike typing his sternly-worded email of complaint to Facebook HQ in his dimly-lit Dickensian flat in inner city London, fingerless mittens turning down parrafin lamps as the evening draws to a close, the yellow-green fog creeping its way around the cobblestones and horse-drawn carriages, conveying men at midnight to those who would indulge their dark complusions. I'm also imagining the poor bastard at Facebook HQ who probably had too much will to live to actually read any of the messages, and just hit a Send Warning button somewhere to shut Mike Perkins up. Maybe this will work, thinks my imaginary Facebook employee, maybe now Mike Perkins will quit whining. I never did check that box, and it just disappeared after a week; I acknowledge nothing!




Chapter 2: Defamation 101


Before we get into the legal morass of jurisdiction and how it's more or less impossible to nail anything down online, "defamation" is a legal term for something very specific: spreading lies about someone which causes them measurable harm. Obviously, making stupid jokes isn't covered. Sometimes even saying obviously hurful and nasty things without humour isn't covered, and in fact, not a single case ever taken against Facebook or any Facebook account for defamation has been successfully prosecuted (although that won't stop some people from taking money from people dumb enough or angry enough to think they have a case). Not a single one. In this particular case, for instance, the judge threw out the case because the people had set an earlier precedent of making obviously outlandish statements for the purposes of mockery, but you could throw that case out for a number of reasons. Facebook is, as are all social networks, full of uptight assholes getting offended and expecting someone else to be responsible for it. So good luck with that, Mike Perkins.

But let's say that the comedy exception doesn't exist (which it does). Even in that case, he'd have to demonstrate that it caused him measurable damage (defamation doesn't give a shit about "emotional distress" - in other words, the fact that you got upset is your own fault, legally (and common sensically too)). He would be unable to do so, because the only people who saw that were on Facebook, where he's the only person (apart from his poor wife, to whom my heart goes out) who didn't think it was funny. Ironically, claiming that my business failed could be seen as defamation because, firstly, it's false, secondly, he clearly takes it seriously and expects others to believe it as a fact, and thirdly, it could be damaging to my future employment prospects (although being a business failure didn't do George Bush any harm).

He's made the mistake of assuming that becasue he finds something offensive, everyone else has to also. This is a fundamental disorder of humanity. When the divorce referendum was passed in Ireland, it only passed by 0.3 %. what this means is effectively half the country showed up to say not only do I personally disagree with divorce, but no one else can have one either! As you can see, at least in my country, this sort of disordered thinking is quite common. In reality, that fact that Mike Perkins got offended by something I said means fuck-all legally, and if he wanted to get into a legal thing, he'd have his ass handed to him, not by me, but his own lawyer.

Incidentally, after the little box went away, I read the Facebook Community Standards for the first time while researching this page, and the good news is that mockingly referring to someone as a pseudonymous, cocaine-taking paedophile does not violate ANY of the ten sections! Go click on the link; have a look. It's instructive.




Chapter 3: The 9/11 Controversy


Soon after 9/11, paranoid mutterings were made about one "M. Perkins" in relation to the World Trade Centre bombings. Although conveniently out of the country at the time of these terrorist acts, the FBI seems clear on the connection. Evidence gleaned from aggressive interrogation techniques in Guantanamo Bay was confused. Some miltants placed him in the airplanes on the day (which, as I've said, is impossible), some claimed he was one of the masterminds of the entire operation (with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atef), while still others said he was coincidentally in the background of a number of high-level meetings, but didn't know where he was or what was going on.

Initially reluctant to present himself to the authorities due in part to his paedophile past, and a cocaine habit which, in the words of a source close to Mike Perkins, "made David Bowie look like a Christian", eventually his legal counsel convinced him that offering testimony was preferable to the feds kicking his door down and dragging him away in a sack.

What happened during the following three days (the maximum allowable interrogation time before charging becomes legally necessary) is a matter of debate. All four people present differ in their accounts, but they all agree that his written evidence was confused, frequently contradicted itself, and seemed to imply a massive conspiracy of terrorists which including a network of fundamentalist Muslims who manned the major ports of Europe specifically to smuggle paedophiles into and out of various countries (mainly Italy, France and Germany). This conspiracy went "all the way to the top", although when challenged, he was unable to name anyone at the top, or the prime ministers of the United States or England. He then attempted to use his inside knowledge of this conspiracy to leverage leniency from "the judge", even though it was repeatedly explained that he wasn't being charged with anything.

Ultimately, the role of Mike Perkins in the World Trade Center bombing may never be known, but it behooves all right thinking people to ask the question: how many lives would have been saved if his threat to the community had been identified by law enforcement earlier? Probably at least three or four, I'd think. Maybe even five.


* Seriously. I have never seen a boat propelling mechanism that had such a low appreciation for the subtle art of ironic sarcasm.


Los Angeles Dating Site Profile
writer's block
solo1y
This is what it looks like:

I’m not your typical LA girl. I am from [somewhere with a cooler climate] but I moved here for the sunshine and my career. I like [some combination of the following]: hiking, yoga, Runyon Canyon, social cause X, reading [Sedaris / Palahniuk / Murakami], listening to [Radiohead / Muse / Mumford and Sons / The XX], farmer’s markets, Whole Foods, and Wes Anderson movies.
Now, since everyone has written the same thing, it’s hard for me to see exactly how you’re not the typical Los Angeles type. Analysis: engaged.

You’ve travelled a lot because, after all, your parents’ generation didn’t work so hard for you to get barefoot and pregnant at 22 and you now feel that “seeing the world” has given you more life experience and credibility. Maybe you’ve even ventured into a Third World country (Mexico doesn’t count), which you can now wax poetic about over $20 martinis.

You think voting Democrat somehow shows you’re a compassionate humanitarian, thinking that the difference between them and Republicans is chocolate-vanilla, when even a cursory analysis will reveal more of a dark chocolate/light chocolate contrast.

You say that you love animals, despite the fact you claim ownership of them, give them human names, and sometimes dress them in human clothing. In other words, you’ve just anthropomorphized them to fill the childless void in your life.

Despite your proclaimed activism in the cause of social issues, you have an unnerving amount of products produced by Apple, one of the most egregious operators of evil, pseudo-enslavement of people in developing nations.  Also, just one of the little social events you’ve been to in the last month could’ve financed a permanent system of potable water for an entire village.

You can buy a nice faux-bohemian lifestyle, you can buy a “green” eco-friendly car so you feel less guilty about those plane flights to wherever, but you can’t buy self-awareness.

I’m not saying I hate you, but SHOW ME SOMETHING ORIGINAL!
Tags: ,

Impossible To Translate
writer's block
solo1y
In 1915, Franz Kafka published "The Metamorphosis", about a man who turns into something else. The very first sentence of The Metamorphosis is

"Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheuren Ungeziefer verwandelt."

On the face of it, a fairly simple German sentence. Generations of proud English and German speakers, however, have had trouble with the last bit. 

The phrase "ungeheuren Ungeziefer", means "horrible vermin" (according to David Wyllie's translation) or "monstrous vermin" (according to Stanley Corngold's translation), but it's very difficult to translate. "Ungeziefer" definitely means "vermin", but English speakers are far more likely to mentally categorise "vermin" in terms of rats and mice. It makes your brain do a little skip, which is something any writer or translator wants to avoid. 

The description of a carapace and many legs and so on makes it clear he is some sort of insect, so "vermin" is no good; it's sending our understanding in the wrong direction. In 2002, Richard Stokes translated it as "monstrous insect", and the most popular translation (by Joachim Neugroschel) is "gigantic insect", but this is technical language, a description of phylum and class and contains nothing of the horror implied in the word "Ungeziefer", so "insect" is no good. Another approach has been to attempt to define exactly what kind of insect. A beetle? A cockroach? Vladimir Nabokov had a mild obsession with nailing down exactly what sort of beetle was intended, which is probably irrelevant to the point of the story, and in any case, no one can agree. As with all of Kafka's writing, it's less about accuracy of detail, and more about pushing a certain urgent, paranoid mood into your mind. The language we choose for our translation must be a translation of mood, not of words.

Wikipedia has the adorable "gigantic insect-like creature", which, although technically very accurate, is so self-consciously avoidant that it's taking us even further away from the text by thrusting an image into our brains and then refusing to define what the image is. Ian Johnson's "monstrous verminous bug" is probably the best translation, as it covers the idea of being too big, of being some sort of pest, and the word "bug" is admirably non-specific while meaning, essentially, "insect". Even this valiant effort, however, doesn't have the flow or snap of "ungeheuren Ungeziefer". This leaves us with Stanley Applebaum's "enormous bug", which sacrifices meaning for flow, but given that the entire King James bible was written under that mandate, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

There is a very interesting sub-field of linguistic anthropology called folk taxonomy, which is specifically the study of how people decide to categorise the meaning of their words (and things). As you might expect, this is often at variance with the real relationship between those words and things.  There are many examples of experiments run where subjects from different cultures are shown photos of a dog, and a tiger, and then a cat. They are asked which of the two first photos is "most like" the cat, without expanding on what they mean. The idea is to get the subject to determine what you mean, and decide accordingly. The results can sometimes be surprising. People connect words and meanings in ways that would never occur to you or me, and fail to understand the connections we make. And that's fine.

It's looking more and more like "Ungeziefer" is the translator's nightmare: impossible to translate while maintaining both the mood and the meaning. And that's just the first sentence. Next week on Impossible To Translate, I hope to get into the second sentence.

Fake Word of the Day XIII
writer's block
solo1y
An occasional series where I take something for which there is no word and invent a word for it.

child corn - an unnecessarily shocking term for baby corn.

Jimmy Carter Effect - doing something good or useful about 25 years after it would have made a difference.

cowdog - a tiny, vicious, high-pitched, yappy dog that runs away as soon as you stand up.

pialogue - a conversation you get into for the right reasons, but you know exactly how it's going to go, and there's really not a lot you can do about it, and if you keep pushing it, you'll be the bad guy. Most pialogues end with the words "But I love him".

barratron - the sort of person who brings logical analysis to a situation which requires compassion and diplomacy.

twittle - a short text message or tweet that makes no sense at all, even after you fix it up.

fauxtee - an arrangement of facial hair that looks like the wearer was aiming for a different effect.

giblate - a customised license plate with so many substitutions and abbreviations that you have no idea what it's supposed to say.

schmoo - the feeling you get when you realise you've spent the last ten minutes trying to clone-brush away a bit of dust on your monitor's screen.

knibble - that part of your nose or ears that doesn't look quite right.

ovary acting - the various types of fake emotion with which some women manipulate everyone around them.

flubble - that little shudder generated in a stalled or slow car when another car whips past at speed.

Related: If you like this sort of thing, you might like Fake Word of the Day XII, and the official Fake Words page on my own website.