Why did @the_daily_rag get nuked by the Twitter Gods?

Up until the nitwit I never made specific tags to do news on a cyberbully. He was the first, the #NitwitNews was for him. It was an already existing, but seldom used, tag for tweets about stupid criminals; seemed a good fit. The thing was that shortly after I started using it, he started using it too, try to confuse the matter...

...which is when I made @TheNitwitNews to retweet any and all reports made by me, or anyone, that had to do with the nitwit's cyberbullying.

Then there was #ManicMidgetNews made for this annoying little rape tweeting cyberbully, and an account for official tweets about him... and so on and so forth and, you get the idea.

Twitter informed me that my news accounts got suspended for all being used for the same purpose, and that it was one person using them; part of the appeals process was I had to list what accounts were mine and what I was using them for. While commendable they were being used for documenting those abusing others, the fact I had so many was bad.

Part of why I had so many was the reason above, cyberbullies will start to use the tags you use to report their abuse... and towards the end there The Rag was doing news on a lot of cyberbullies. So, as far as it goes, I might've gotten just a tad carried away.

Although, in my defense, I only did news on cyberbullies while they were trying to abuse me and others I knew. When a cyberbully ceased attacking others, fell off the grid, I stopped all news about them. Not a hard thing to do either, I'd much rather not have anything to do with any of those scummy bastards.

If scummy bastards seems a lil' harsh, consider:
Exhibit A) The nitwit uses pedophilia, rape tweets, descriptions of screwing dead animals, and a whole lot of other disgusting stuff to bother people with. He creates child accounts he writes scenarios of those he targets being abused by, and outside of his abuse he trolls Twitter for pics of underage kids not wearing a lot of clothes.

Exhibit B) Frankie Cage, as he likes to be known, claims he only wants to engage in fantasy rape play, but when he can't find anyone to do that with he starts doing it to people who don't want it. When they complain, he abuses them even more for getting upset he sent them detailed descriptions of raping them, as though it's somehow their fault he's doing this.

Conclusion: I think that more than merits those 2 being fairly scummy.

According to the nitwit & Frankie, who clearly aren't the pillars of any community, The Rag got suspended for cyberbullying someone who the nitwit dragged into my life. See, the nitwit came after The Rag for a challenge as opposed to who he usually targeted, but about a year in and 200+ of his accounts suspended due to news I did and filed reports... he started trolling Twitter to find other abusive cyberbullies to send my way.

This is why I had so many news accounts, one for each of those redirected cyberbullies.

All previous ones the nitwit sent my way were pretty much the same, but not so much that last one. Guy was in a class all his own, and far worse than I at first believed... and, as stated here & there, the less said about him the better. I initially tried to show him how the nitwit really was, which seemed to work for a bit, but then he started spreading lies and making false accusations and...

...and there I go typing about him again.

However, said unmentionable keeps agreeing with the nitwit that I was cyberbullying him.

Was I?

Truth, I'm not 100% certain I wasn't.

When he was doing the same stuff all other cyberbullies I ran into did, I treated him just as I treated them. The focus of his attacks were primarily on 2 other people I didn't know, and 1 I now wish I knew less of. It's just when he set his attention on me he started saying things I was doing that had no basis in reality:

· He said I made violent threats against him, which I didn't.
· He said I was homophobic, which I'm not.
· He hashtagged my name to the National Suicide Hotline, which was just weird.

Pointing out those 2 first things weren't true didn't do any good. I said they weren't true, he said they were. Apparently a lack of any supporting evidence didn't seem to be a factor for him, and so he kept repeating it to anyone who read his content as though it were the gospel truth and not what it actually was, a fabrication from deep within his own deluded mind.

Some cyberbullies saying random bad things about someone doesn't concern most, but this guy has 100+ accounts that he retweets his crap to.

Since The Rag's has been gone the nitwt's been trolling any mention of it's account name to spread his usual load of crap about why it's gone. Generally pointing out it's the nitwit doing this has been proof enough for anyone to give him the eyeroll he deserves; you tend to lose credibility when you pretend roleplay accounts are real people that you reference the suicide of said fake person to tell others it's okay for them to commit suicide too.

The nitwit isn't the only one to fake the death of a person they pretended was real, but he is the only one I know that keeps going on about the same fake dead person for years, efven to people that weren't even connected to the situation.

Still, though, was I cyberbullying?

On the one hand, I say no. I've always maintained that doing the same things cyberbullies do back to them isn't a good thing. You can only counter their excessive dishonesty with truth. What I did was document the abuse of cyberbullies so others could see it, with screenshots of them doing it. Yet, even with that I'd gotten to the point I was documenting several cyberbullies with multiple accounts, some of those abusers that were interacting with each other to support their abusive efforts calling for news accounts about them to make dual reports and...

Yeah, it's kind of a confusing gray area.

Basically, on the other hand I still say no but it's a very on shakey ground kinda no.

What I can say for sure is the following: I didn't make any threats, I didn't make up things about those I reported on. Reported activity of those cyberbullies I did news on was accurate, supported by screenshots showing them doing it. I just got a little carried away.

Of course, by a little I mean a lot.

Already got some ideas for the next newspaper, when I get around to making it, to avoid any such confusions in the future.
wise old caffiene

a view on the Tea Party's supposed racism

xposted to I'm right and you're wrongArgument·Clinic & Cwazy AmericansUSA·de·Quirky

11:11 PM 7/30/10 · Where the Tea Party is concerned the issue of racism comes up a lot. Those on the Right say that it's due to the Left trying to put down this great movement, and the Left say they are seeing that which should be obvious to all.

Personally, while I'm sure it's not 100%, I do see it. I'm not Left or Right, have voted for both, I'm fair to middlin'. I'll even tell you why I see it with a related example.

The Chinese.

In the era of Hollywood films prior to Bruce Lee actively becoming an actor, the Chinese were always depicted in American films as having insanely exaggerated accents, intensely squinty eyes, and either unusually big or buck teeth. The people in Hollywood did not view this as being racist, though it was brought up numerous times (in other cases as well not involving the Chinese) it was laughed off as being a ridiculous notion...

...although generally it's an askew'd perspective to ask the people making the offensive display whether or not it's racist. They either don't see it or don't care.

To the Chinese, the ones being presented in this manner in Hollywood films, it was viewed as extremely racist and highly prejudicial.

So, we have the Tea Party and at their rallies they often have Barack Obama either lynched in effigy or, along the same lines to my example above, dressed in animal skins with bone piercings and presented as a savage.

It was racist when Hollywood did this kinda thing to the Chinese...so why isn't it racist when the Tea Party does it to Barack Obama?

Again, I'm sure 100% of the Tea Party are not racist. I'm sure they didn't all have a hand in making these type, or the various other, of depictions of Obama...but even the people that didn't make them carry these signs and are thus putting forth the image and spreading it through their rallies and presentations.

On purpose or not, that's racism.
the Doctor is in


Flipping channels I stumbled across a comedian who said (in her opinion and her opinion only) that if men could get pregnant then abortion would not only be legal but it would be insanely easy to get. She suggested drive in abortion clinics...

...but I digress.

Whatever you think about abortion, do you agree with this assessment?
Templar Tux

just a bit outside

1:34 AM 5/16/10 · This is a religious post but it's just as much a historic deal as that. I'm watching a 2 hour special on the History Channel, contrasting the current Robin Hood movie with the actual historical accounting and it's touched on a relative sore point of mine. I've seen just about all of the Robin Hood movies but most notably in recent years it's the ones where Robin has been portrayed by Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, & Sean Connery. Yeah, there's been others but these 3 feature that ever present sore point I'm referring to...

...the Holy Crusade.

I tend to frown on the praise that Christianity tends to insist it deserves due to a number of points in history, as well as some of their rather annoying behavior into the present day, and The Crusades is a biggie. Wherein the Church at the time basically gave English knights carte blanche to slaughter as many people as they possibly could so that they could be assured a place in Heaven. Not an unusual tact, lots of religions have used the promise of paradise the incite violence...but let's stay on point.

There's also the whole bit in regards of reclaiming the Holy Land for Christianity.

By the by, mildly amused by the accounting that back then the Christians referred to the Muslims as 'the infidel' and in modern times that's been reversed.

What I've never gotten is this. Realistically it means that the Christians were going to a place they never had been to take it from the Muslims that were in power there at the time in order to not give it back to the people who actually were from there; the Jews. Now it's possible my perspective on this is a bit off, I've not pursued the actual history of this since high school...

...it's just that my recall is that the Holy Land orginally belonged to the Jews. The Muslims came to power sometime after that but Christianity never has a footing there until after the Holy Crusade. It's not so much that the Holy Crusade was based on an outright lie but even if Christianity ever held any real influence in the goings on of the Holy Land it most certainly wasn't the Christians that came from England.

Of course, that little detail in the 10 Commandments regarding not murdering people adds to the soreness of all this.

Okay, Jesus was from the Holy Land (more or less) but he wasn't a Christian. He was Jewish, a rabbi. Even his disciples weren't really Christians, just a Hebrew cult if you'll allow for the phrasing. From my understanding there were any official Christians, referred to as such, until a very long time after the crucifixion.

Maybe a hundred years or so.

Am I wrong about this? Did Christianity ever have an actual sphere of power in the Holy Land before the Muslims took over? I'm thinking maybe Charlamagne but without looking it up I don't recall where he figured into all this historically. Not to mention he was ordained by the Pope and as brutal a Christian as there ever was.
0 - America the demented

Go figure

xposted to I'm right and you're wrongArgument·Clinic, a laugh for your soulSilly·Religion, & Cwazy AmericansUSA·de·Quirky

11:18 PM 4/8/10 · I'd been meaning to do a post on the Separation of Church & State for awhile now, been in the news a lot the last few months, but I've been putting it off. No particular reason. Sometimes these things need to wander around in my head for a stretch before I get around to typing on them...

...but, oddly, what got me going on this now is Glenn Beck.

No, my mind on the man has not been changed. I detest Glenn Beck. He's a fear monger, a causer of worry. It's what he does. Everybody has a special skill and I guess it was either this or do a cooking show. Not that I think I'd've been inclined to like him more if he'd gone the other route.

Something about his mannerisms make me concerned about any food he might produce.

The reason I mention him at all is this, I was disussing with Mom the other day that his show comes on at the same time as The Daily Show & The Colbert Report. Those 2 repeat several times after their initial showings, seems to be ever 2½ to 3 hours, so I can catch them later or wait till they're doing repeats. I know i don't like Glenn Beck but an uninformed opinion is not one with much standing. So, I figure I can check his show out every so often...

...and, as I'm typing this, he and his special guest (David Barton) are discussing the Separation of Church & State.

Go figure.

Collapse )

On a random note, I was amused that GB pointed out that in the early stages of our country that school children were given a small bible to study from along with their usual learnings. This is not exactly a shock. Anyone that ever watched Little House On the Prarie, as well as any other period pieces of that time, would be aware of this fact. The reason I believe this was discontinued was mostly due to the fact that it was only the Christian religion that was being taught in schools...

...and being that we are a nation of many religions, that kind of religious segregation didn't play over so well with the public at large.
you have to deal with my lists

Health Care Summit on CSPAN3

10:21 PM 2/25/10 · I missed the first 2 hours of it cuz I was asleep. My alarm doesn't go off until 8am and I didn't even know when it was supposed to be on until the morning news told me. Still, it was 6 hours long and I caught most of it and left with the following conclusion...

...that while I was already for the new proposed health care before, I'm definitely for it now.

Little things really. Like both Republicans and Democrats agreeing that the current health care system will bankrupt and fail in the relatively near future. Whereas Obama's proposed health care system only 'might' fail and bankrupt. Both sides are pretty much on point there and I like those odds.

The Republicans have a sort of box·eyed view of the situation. They see it but in a limited field of vision. What they currently have, and an alternative proposed fairly recently, admittedly can only help about 3 million people and they feel pretty good about that. That it leaves 30 million other people uncovered doesn't seem to be that big a deal to them...

...and there's also the financial concern. They seem to think that those that will not be covered have options to just switch services to better suit their situation. A Democrat proposed that it may be due to the fact that government officials make upwards of $160,000 a year, tax free. Whereas most of the people they feel should be able to handle their health insurance plans as easily as they can only make about $40,000 a year.

Of course, non·government folks get taxed.

Obama did a good job of making sure everyone, both Republicans and Democrats, got a chance to be heard. Now it may be due to that, as much as the fact he felt a need to comment on everybody's thoughts inbetween, that the summit ran into overtime by close to 2 hours. Still, much seemed to be accomplished in this forum in that being televised certain unsavory behaviors that are regular with some of these folks didn't come to the fore as the entire things is televised.

Politicians tend to be more polite when the American people can actually see and hear them.

Both Republicans and Democrats thanked Obama profusely for having this session the way they had it as it came across as more progressive than what they usually have to go through. This is not to say everyone was happy with what was said or how views interchanged. I was often surprised how many ideas from both parties echoed each others, as I'm sure so were they.

Obama's health care isn't any closer to going into effect than before. At least I don't think so. I could be wrong about it but I really think we should give it a shot. Have to do something cuz the current system ain't working, the Republicans proposed new plan covers the barest minority of the American people, and as a Democrat so eloquently pointed out every day 14,000 people lose their health insurance and another 6 to 8 die for not having any health coverage.

Whatever you may think of Obama's plan it does have the advantage of it being designed to help everybody. It may not work but the current stuff isn't working either. Also, it's no more expensive than what's currently in place. As the man said himself, it uses the same amount of funds but better manages the distribution of it...

...whereas (love that word) the current dealio costs the same but a majority of those funds are diverted to only 5% of the American people.

A few buzz words and phrases seem to have people in an uproar against Obama on this. The Republicans are good with the smear campaigns. One of them after the summit again said that the American people (as a whole) were opposed to Obama's plan in entirety...and then said that 55% of them had as much said so.

Let me just do the math on that...so that's 45% of the American people that are in favor of Oama's health care plan.

Hmmmm, not so cut & dried after all.

The Colbert Report has been focused on the Olympics but The Daily Show covered the health care summit with it's entire episode last night: Clicky!
1 - Q&A's

a lil' gay marriage rant

xposted to I'm right and you're wrongArgument·Clinic, a laugh for your soulSilly·Religion, & Cwazy AmericansUSA·de·Quirky

10:18 AM 1/14/10 · While there is cettainly more to it, seems to me that the whole gay marriage thing largely churns and storms around 3 main issues:

"man may not lay with man as he does with woman"
This is a line from the Bible, supposedly, and as with a lot of issues...people love playing the religious card. It is the 'Word of God' which I am sketchy on. In the 1st, the Bible isn't a complete work. There was a great council centuries back that decided what would go in the Bible and what would not. People often wonder why the time between Jesus as a child and an adult isn't covered. Fact of the matter is there are many Books of Jesus but they were excluded for fear they would portray him in a bad light, along the lines of it portaryed him not only having his powers as a little boy but having to learn to use them responsibly.

If you ever wish to know those lost years of Jesus I believe they're in the Gnostic version.

Along with how everyone knows the Devil was originally an angel, which isn't in the Bible at all, and the fact that priests are forbidden to have sex, also not in the Bible...let us simply say that you cann't use the Bible to define the world as it is today. You also cannot use it as the authoritative Word of God as beyond the 10 Commandments, most of it wasn't written by the Big Guy. Inspired by is not the same thing!

Also, to go in a more literal sense, men really don't lay with men the same way as they do with women. Ignoring for a moment this really only refers to gay men (guess the Bible is cool with lesbians) if you work out the physical realities of sex that's not a lot of heterosexual positioning. Ironically, both back in the day and still in some areas of the world, women laying with men the way men lay with men is/was viewed as a mortal sin. Something along the lines of cavorting as beasts do (humans are the only animal that makes such a big deal about not being such) the doggie·style position has long been viewed badly by those who supposedly have religious fortitude.

My 2¢? I think that insecure men, centuries back, inserted that into the Bible in a vain hope of stamping out what they considered a threat. It goes along with the same idiocy as gays in the military, soldiers worried that the person watching their backs might be also checking them out would somehow make war more dangerous.

the sanctity of marriage
This one makes me laugh my ass off everytime I hear about it coming up. Igonoring that most gay unions I know of are far more stable than the heterosexual ones...actually, no, let's go with that. Possibly the one major advantage to gay marriage being illegal is that there haven't been a large number of gay divorces...

...and isn't it funny that the people that are concerned about the 'sanctity' of marriage are those that have the right and get divorced all the freaking time.

Heterosexual unions aren't doing much for the so called sanctity. Divorce rates seem to get higher every year, not just counting the people that get married drunk in Vegas one weekend and divorced sober in a week or so after, and infidelity would be the world's oldest profession if people got paid for it. Similar to how some people seem to use abortion as a form of birth control, which is bad, there are those that get married and divorced in almost less time than it took me to type that.

The only time marriage ever seemed to be reliable was back in the days of arranged marriages, wherupon the end of the union would result in jail time.

There is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage, unless maybe if you're Amish.

interviewing racial profiles
A very popular thing, for those interviewing those opposed to gay marriage, is finding people that aren't caucasian and most often are in an interracial union. Certainly in the United States, where at various points certain ethnic groups were not allowed to marry others. Not all of those became legal at the same time either. I think Latin and Caucasian happened before Asian and Caucasian was allowed and I'm fairly sure that Black and Caucasian was made legal last of all the other variations, excluding the unions that did not have Caucasians in them...

...which I don't know if much of anyone ever raised an eyebrow at.

The point is that people ooposed to gay marriage seek out interracial couples or people of a so called minority group because, clearly, if they are also against gay marriage that's just another nail in the coffin.

I find it disgusting. Not only the act of doing it in the first place but also that those who know the stigma of prejudice and not having the same rights as everyone else also lording it over another group that wants the same rights that everybody else has. It's just not fair.

For those that don't know me, 2 things: I'm straight and I figure they have just as much right to be potentially miserable like everybody else.
Curse Reed Richards - poopie head

Do you really know what you think you know?

xposted to I'm right and you're wrongArgument·Clinic & Cwazy AmericansUSA·de·Quirky

10:09 AM 9/13/09 · It seems virtually impossible to go a single week without hearing someone going on about Obama and his socialistic ways and I'm getting a little sick of it. The reason it bothers me so much is that I don't actually know if he is a fundmental cog of socialism to begin with. The man's been in the news, long before the run for the White House, and it wasn't until the middle of that where it even came up.

I mean, really...do people really think he's a socialist or do they just think he is because so many influential people that don't like him (not a single person that likes the man makes this claim) say he is?

The average United States citizen does not have a great deal of experience with socialism. It's not anything they've ever had to deal with. Short of looking it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia I'd be fairly willing to bet that most people don't even know what socialism is.
Take yourself for example.

Yeah, you, the person reading this!

What about Barack Obama screams socialism to you? Did you notice it all by your lonesome of did you just get caught up in the fervor of everybody else saying it?

On the other hand, while I don't know if he is a socialist I'm not sure I'd be bothered if it turned out he was. After all, 8 years of the previous administration being extremely not socialistic has pretty much put this country in the crapper on a score of different levels. While longterm it may not be the best way to go, maybe a little socialism is what we need to get things running right again.