Irrelevant Personal Update: Moving out of the Lightless Torture Dungeon this weekend. Just down the block and around the corner, but still, I'll be in a house, with floors made of wood and windows that permit light into the home. In light of this, please be understanding of periodically interrupted blogging the past couple of days and the next week or so. Otay? Thanks.

Quickee Barnacle Alert to get things rolling:

women RAINBOW SANDALS - $30 (normal heights)

Posted, and reposted, and reposted every day in the hopes of selling used flip-flops for thirty dollars. Not what I call having one's finger on the pulse of the marketplace!

Today's 2nd-Place-Runner-Up-Spectacular:

Way Huge Swollen Pickle Fuzz Pedal !! - $120 (normal heights)

Mild Titular Lewdness aside, I like sometimes to provide an example of a truly well-written ad. I consider this a public service, educating the masses on the right way to use my most favorite of favorite websites. In this ad, we have an exhaustive description of the item and all is features; a brief history and philosophical statement of the item's manufacturer; a recapitulation on certain key aspects of the Swollen Pickle; and, finally, the all-important picture, without which many sales are completely hopeless. Regardez et repetez.

But the Best-Of nod must go out to:

Makeup Brush Belt - $20 (Normal Heights)

Midnight in Gotham City. Thugs and hooligans rule the streets, gambling in the alleyways and guarding the doors to seedy speakeasies and other such dens of iniquity. Every now and then, a gunshot rings out or the muffled sounds of a fight trickle out of dark corners and into the streets where only the bravest citizens tread after nightfall. In a world where fear is the currency of record, who will frighten the frighteners?

This is the world of Batmakeup Man.

A shadow darker than the darkness that soaks like ink into a crime-plagued world. A force more powerful than the powerful syndicates that rule the night. Batmakeup Man is always there, watching from the rain-spattered rooftops and blood-stained corners of the underworld, the last line of defense against the rotten underbelly of Gotham City.

Trained in the ancient ways of half a dozen martial arts, armed with the best weapons and armor that modern technology can devise, and possessed by a sense of discipline and duty the world has never before seen, Batmakeupman is the ultimate crime fighter. But, as everyone knows, Batmakeupman is best known for his utility belt. The adjustable clip-belt allows him total freedom of mobility, even in the heat of close-quarters makeup combat. The belt is known for its many pockets; pockets which hold brushes, sponges, q-tips, and whatnot (viz. explosives, batmakeupgrappling hook, batmakeupshuriken, lockpicks, handcuffs, laser eyeliner, mascara cannon, etc.). The faux leather construction of the famous utility belt makes for easy cleaning, a necessity in light of the nightly descent into the grimy Gotham underworld. It folds inward to protect his batmakeup brush tips, so that Batmakeupman is ready for a surprise attack from the Joker (who hates Batmakeupman for his superior cosmetics) or Bane (who wears only masks and hates Batmakeupman) at any point, never worrying that his brushes will be damaged or inoperable in the heat of battle. As perhaps the most serious makeup artist in recorded history, Batmakeupman literally hangs his life on the integrity of his makeup utility belt whenever he descends into the scum-ridden cesspool of Gotham's black-hearted criminal world.

Second only to the utility belt, is Batmakeupman's very large makeup kit on wheels. A vehicle like no other, the very large makeup kit on wheels is stackable, locks together, and rolls. The sound of the fast approaching very large makeup kit on wheels is one of the most feared noises in the history of Gotham City's blood-stained alleyways. At the first sign of the squeak squak squeak of the very large makeup kit on wheels, criminals of all stripes run for cover. That sound can mean only one thing: Batmakeupman is coming!

Hide yourselves away, gangsters, hoods, goons, thugs, thieves, murderers, and rogues of Gotham City. Batmakeupman owns the night in this town. He could be there, in any shadow, any corner, ready to spring out, Batmakeupman utility belt at the ready, to deliver the swift justice of cosmetology with an unwavering (and surprisingly well-manicured) hand.

More like this:


MsGrant Nov. 20, 2009 @ 9:11 p.m.

Sorry, we've been too busy fighting the as*hats of The Girl Haters Club. Anyway, I love the flip-flops that have only been worn ONCE!? You can see the entire foot inprint in the sole!!


PistolPete Nov. 20, 2009 @ 9:17 p.m.

You say that like it's a bad thing, MsGrant. :-D


antigeekess Nov. 20, 2009 @ 9:28 p.m.

Dude, I'm all about that Way Huge Swollen Pickle Fuzz thingy! That is a most entertaining CL poster, right there.

The work of Batmakeupman?

On a somber note, and for the ladies, I also found this interesting pic of Heath Ledger with Joker scars, before application of the rest of the makeup.

Takes my breath. There was something really extraordinary about that guy.


CuddleFish Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:17 p.m.

No kidding ... I remember hearing on one of the newscasts at the time of his death that he was haunted by the character he was playing, couldn't sleep at night ...

Truly extraordinary ....


CuddleFish Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:18 p.m.

MsG, the meeting of the Girl Haters Club hasn't posted an agenda and minutes for this week, has it?


PistolPete Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:26 p.m.

The GHC meets in a timely fashion whenever the hell it feels like it. Bylaw # 482-Subsection 10


David Dodd Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:37 p.m.

There is no Girl Haters Club other than in the warped mind of CF, who loves to hijack Pike's blog entries for the purpose of flaming the comments in the threads. Pike, you shouldn't have to put up with this crap.


antigeekess Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:42 p.m.

Actually, refried, I think it was Grant who first proposed the existence of the clandestine GHC, back in comment #1. Pete seems to have confirmed it, in comment #6.

You're obviously not a member.



PistolPete Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:44 p.m.

Shhhhhhhhh Refried. Ixnay on the lubcay ;-D


SDaniels Nov. 20, 2009 @ 10:47 p.m.

"Irrelevant Personal Update: Moving out of the Lightless Torture Dungeon this weekend. Just down the block and around the corner, but still, I'll be in a house, with floors made of wood and windows that permit light into the home."

Whoa. This is no irrelevant personal detail, here. Already, the transfer of the Pikean brain trust to a LIGHTED torture dungeon has affected the quantity of product we receive. Which leads to the question--how will it affect the QUALITY of future deliverables? [shiver]

"In light of this,

please be understanding of periodically interrupted blogging..."


David Dodd Nov. 20, 2009 @ 11:02 p.m.

AG: I sort of responded to Ms. Grant in another post (another of Pike's I think) with this:

"Ms. Grant, sorry to disappoint you, but I won't be bullied by philogynist any more than I would expect you to be bullied by a misogynist. And I did not call CF butch, I said that she was acting like one. I can ignore a lot of BS here directed my way, but not all of it."

I think that I was quite measured in that response. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I decided to take the tacit response here as not directed my way. Ms. Grant initially admitted to believing that I was a misogynist, although I am guessing that most women here know better (hopefully, at leat now), and a several few would laugh at the notion that I was.

But, men will be men. It isn't for women to change them, nor even accept them, simply to know that what they write and how they respond is bound to be different and at times in conflict with what a woman wants to hear. As I am fond of saying, this is what happens. I like Ms. Grant, and will certainly give her plenty of room to rant in whatever direction she wishes. That doesn't mean I'll always agree with her.

But I'll certainly respect her, because I think she's from the heart. Same with you, same with SD, same with several others. This isn't men vs. women, it's BS vs. other BS.


CuddleFish Nov. 20, 2009 @ 11:14 p.m.

Poor Pike, getting his thread all taken off topic .... ;)


PistolPete Nov. 20, 2009 @ 11:17 p.m.

This forum is not unlike a playground. The men will make and break alliances at whim but most things come full circle. The womenfolk gossip on endlessly. Some of the womenfolk like some of the menfolk but little Susie Homemaker wouldn't dare admit to her friends that she likes little Johnny Reb for fear of the inevitable, "COOTIES!!!!!!!!!!!" Meanwhile, little Jimmy Snotsalot is pulling little Jenny Higgenbottom's pigtails and the playground moms try their hardest to keep peace.

This is my playground. I may hate it at times and love it at others but-this is my playground. Interlopers beware. :-D


David Dodd Nov. 20, 2009 @ 11:28 p.m.

CF, you're an idiot, and you're the biggest problem in these responses. You hate men, and you try to rally all women behind it. It's assinine. You would hijack any thread to make your point, you have no respect for anyone. You're a philogynist, go look it up. And STFU in Pike's thread. Go spin your own tales of how men suck. Do it in your own blog.


Ring a bell, bitch?

Why don't you go back to the political forums from whence you came? You were better off there, dividing the people that comment into one side or the other. Passive-agressive, right? This is the Reader. Not your God Damned personal forum.


PistolPete Nov. 20, 2009 @ 11:38 p.m.

LMAO! Interception, Touchdown, Field Goal and a Safety all rolled into one. I love it. 11 points to the victor!!!!


David Dodd Nov. 20, 2009 @ 11:38 p.m.

Oh, and CF, let me preempt your response:

"Girls, are we going to stand for this?"

That's pretty much been your schtick since you arrived here. No. That isn't going to happen. Either grow up and be an adult or get lost. Boys stopped having the cooties since you left the third grade. Josh is Josh, Pete is Pete, Gringo is Gringo, and the others are who they are. Get used to it. Life is life. People are people. If you can't deal, go away.


SDaniels Nov. 21, 2009 @ 12:32 a.m.

re: #13: "This is my playground. I may hate it at times and love it at others but-this is my playground. Interlopers beware."

No, actually it is a public forum, and all of us are welcome. Not very long ago, YOU were the interloper, and many of us have had a hard time accepting the fact that you are sticking around, because your speech is still full of celebratory, arrogant hatred.

"The men will make and break alliances at whim but most things come full circle. The womenfolk gossip on endlessly."

This makes absolutely no sense. You gossip just as 'endlessly' as anyone else, and in fact, you spend much more time on the resident "gossip" threads than any of the female commenters here. It is this kind of division between the sexes that sickens and disgusts many people today, who have learned to understand and treat each other as multi-faceted human beings, rather than as limited cardboard stands of men and women. You can argue all you want about hormonal differences between the sexes, and how we are taught to deal differently with emotions, but when it comes down to it, we are all just people. In my opinion, it is the least adjusted of folk in society who cling desperately to visions of stereotyped male and female roles, as the only way to understand individuals--big mistake. This way of thinking also reinforces sexual norms that repress those who would transgress them, and live as they want to live. If you look up "heteronormative," a word Pike used recently, you will understand a bit better where I am coming from--that is, if you care to try to think a little differently.

re: #11:

"But, men will be men. It isn't for women to change them, nor even accept them, simply to know that what they write and how they respond is bound to be different and at times in conflict with what a woman wants to hear."

Gringo, you'll have to speak for "men" and "women" as you personally conceive of them, of course--especially some idea of "what a woman wants to hear" or the very limiting "men will be men." So does it follow for you that since men and women are so different in the way they write, that we need to analyze them in separate literatures? Do you always know when a work is by a woman or a man?

I do not mean to imply that you are as limited in your conceptions of people as social and private beings as Pete demonstrates that he is, but your statements are often nearly as open to the same manner of interpretation. I do not at all agree with or hold much respect for this lazy, fatalist kind of rhetoric of divisiveness--coming from anyone--and I don't respond to it from Cuddle, either. We have been locked into stereotypical roles of "thinking" and "rational" men and "emotional," "illogical," and "gossiping" women for far too long--geez, this crap was dealt with in the first, clumsy wave of feminist thought.


Josh Board Nov. 21, 2009 @ 3:07 a.m.

To stick to Pikes threads, since they're so well written and funny and it's a disserve to do otherwise:

This line was one of the funniest things I've read in days:

Not what I call having one's finger on the pulse of the marketplace!


antigeekess Nov. 21, 2009 @ 6:17 a.m.

Re #19:

Have to agree with Board (again). See what you all made me do? I HATE it when that happens.


FullFlavorPike Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:02 a.m.

Yes, people are becoming friends! I am the friendmaker!


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:12 a.m.

SDaniels, take off your obviously overused thinking cap and put on your human cap. Re-read what I said. it's written in black and beige. Once again, you prove your stupidity by WAAAAAAAAAAAAY overanylzing my words. I'm sure most people understood what I was getting. 'Course, most people are salt-of-the-Earth humble....maybe that's why.


SDaniels Nov. 21, 2009 @ 4:20 p.m.

re: #22: Pete, if you are trying to claim that you were being tongue-in-cheek, it doesn't work for you. Your claims about women and people of color are sometimes meant as a kind of joke, but you are always dead serious, whether you realize it or not. Sometimes you accept that you are a misogynist and a racist, and other times you deny it. That is called "ambivalence."

re: #21: Pikey, I wouldn't place any bets on that particular match ;) And by now, I guess you know that your pristine threads are going to be soiled a bit here and there. I've only been blogging for about eight months and only on this site, but it's long enough to know that people are passionate about issues and everyone snarks. I hope you can take it as you would listening to the ambient noises and the great rush of squabbling humanity on the street outside your window, like Stella does (and forgets to blog about it).


David Dodd Nov. 21, 2009 @ 4:51 p.m.

SD, not only do I not normally know the sex of the person posting a blog or a comment in the threads, I normally don't care one way or another. However, men and women tend to approach things differently. Often, the comments are telling as to the sex of the commentor. Other times, they aren't. My statement wasn't meant to divide in such terms, you know me better than that.

My point isn't subtle, it's obtuse. For example, the women-folk here sometimes go on about how some male actor or celebrity looks dreamy or whatever. It doesn't bother me at all, even though it excludes me from the conversation (unless you're talking about Eddie Izzard in drag, and then I'm all in). I don't find that sexist at all, men do the same thing. In other words, in certain terms, there is an obvious difference in the sexes sight unseen.

The difference between men and women makes the world a better place. Exploiting those differences improves nothing, and denying the existence of their difference might even be worse. When I purchase a novel, I really don't care the sex of the author. In fact, unless I've read other material by the author, I rarely find out whether it was written by a man or a women until I finish and take a peek at the biography on the last page unless they use their full name.

As I pointed out previously, I'm tired of the sexist comments and would love to help put an end to them. But as Ms. Grant pointed out, I'm not God, so no one has to feel compelled to take my advice. CF can continue to make sexist remarks, Ms. Grant can continue to enable her, Josh can make things worse by referring to women as "broads", and russl can continue to consider men and women as belonging to certain clubhouses. They certainly aren't accountable to me, I'm just some guy who enjoys the Reader website.


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 5:12 p.m.

SD-I certainly wasn't trying to say that I was being toungue-in-cheek. If you look at this forum objectively, you'll see it looks ALOT like an elementary school playground. As for my interlopers remark, I was just trying to say that people shouldn't come in here for the first time thinking it's a bed of roses. It's not. Myself included, we're a very territorial group. You can't deny that. I'm with refried when he says it doesn't bother him if you ladies drone on endlesly for hours about weddings or Clay Aiken or anything else. If I feel like adding something to the conversation, I will. If not, I ignore it and go on.


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 5:17 p.m.

And SD? This IS my playground. Like I've stated before, when the bell rings, I just hit the red X in the upper right-hand corner of my screen and it's back to class. Recess is OVA!


SDaniels Nov. 21, 2009 @ 6:18 p.m.

re: #24: Points taken. (I think you meant "oblique," though--not obtuse). And it does seem that you have called out female posters angrily, while seemingly unconcerned when Pete or Josh ridicule women for being--"women" as they see it. For example, it wasn't "broad," gringo--it was "DUMB broad," so let's not pretty it up or mitigate it. I'm tired of it too; perhaps our being tired of it will influence those who persist in relying on such easy, unfunny, unintelligent--and pointless material.

I will not be pigeonholed, spend most of my time contributing informed or well-argued opinion on a variety of subjects, do not spend my time "endlessly" droning about weddings or other inane subjects--and stay away from the topics if you don't like them, Pete-- and am ready to take on any poster, male or female, to a battle of wits.:)


David Dodd Nov. 21, 2009 @ 6:39 p.m.

It's obtuse, SD. Lacking intellectual acuity. In other words, I was attempting to dumb my message down, the best that I could. And as for Pete and Josh, I've climbed all over their comments and posts plenty of times. I remember arguing endlessly with Josh over women not earning the same as men while performing the same job, for example.

And SD, a battle of wits? I prefer intellegent exchange of ideas.


SDaniels Nov. 21, 2009 @ 6:59 p.m.

I didn't think you meant that--just that your point was perhaps oblique. But-- dumbed down for whom?

"And SD, a battle of wits? I prefer intellegent exchange of ideas."

I was kidding--I've been called "stupid" several times this week by a couple of the most obtuse individuals I've ever met. Allow me a freaking joke, gringo.


David Dodd Nov. 21, 2009 @ 7:11 p.m.

Freaking joke allowed, SD, although you know better than to allow anyone calling you stupid to affect you in any way. You're a very smart broad ;)

And, you know, dumbed down in terms of I really don't want to come off as some smug bastard. I love people, I really do. I get pissed off when someone comes along and tries to decide what someone else should think or want or believe. I try not to be that way. When I get mad, I tend to simplify my thoughts. I get this look on my face like Bush Jr., and simplify ;)


antigeekess Nov. 21, 2009 @ 7:32 p.m.

"(unless you're talking about Eddie Izzard in drag, and then I'm all in)"

You are? You're one interesting cat, Gringo. Full of surprises. :)

Eddie is SO sexy. ESPECIALLY in drag.

"I get this look on my face like Bush Jr."

Which one? This one?

This one?

Perhaps it was this one.

Oh, I know. THIS one.



PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 7:42 p.m.

SD-If you come off looking like an ass, I'll call you an ass. I'm not going out of my way either. I call 'em as I see 'em. My comment about the playground was just that-a comment. I don't see anyone else on these boards picking it apart subtle nuance by subtle nuance. Again, you WAAAAAAAAAY overanalyzed it. If that's how you go through life, fine. I have no problem with that. Just don't get all butthurt when people like me make fun of people like you for doing so.


David Dodd Nov. 21, 2009 @ 7:51 p.m.

I love Eddie Izzard. He's brilliant. And holy crap, does he look good in drag. I've seen plenty of transvestites (here in Tijuana, trust me, we are overloaded), but he's an EXECUTIVE transvestite!


MsGrant Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:04 p.m.

Clay Aiken! Boys - never, ever, ever associate me with waxing on Clay Aiken. If you do, I will hunt you down and make you listen to him WHILE I AM WATERBOARDING YOUR SORRY ASS'S (how the hell do you do multiple ass?). Eddie is a whole different story.


David Dodd Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:11 p.m.

I never associated ANYONE with Aiken, my references were intentionally more subtle. But Izzard is so good. He looks hot in everything. Even not in drag. For those of you with twitter, follow him, he's polite and entertaining.


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:18 p.m.

I was the one who brought up Aiken. He's about as talented as a wedding. And Ms.Grant, I NEVER said you specifically when refering to Aiken. I was categorily bringing up his name while infering fodder.


MsGrant Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:43 p.m.

"you ladies drone on endlesly for hours about weddings"? We were just having fun. That thread went out of control funny because four or five women caught onto a similar theme that we all thought was crazy funny ridiculous. This being the anchor...


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 9:53 p.m.

I followed along even though it didn't interest me. I never said anything because I'm not that kind of guy. I HATE weddings and I didn't feel like ruining your conversation by telling you that you were in fact droning on about it.


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 10:07 p.m.

A wedding to a man(that isn't married) is like a funeral. Men get married not because they want to-they don't-but because society pressures them to. The IRS also pressures them to. To men, cheating is not an option if they truly love their mate. A wedding is pretty much a religious phase in life. I don't understand how a one inch band of metal is supposed to somehow alter a man. Yet, married couples claim that nothing changes. If nothing changes, why get hitched? A man or woman can just as easily have sex with someone other then their mate married or not. A weding is expensive. A divorce can cost as much as a wedding and sometimes more. Based on the law of averages from the past 40 years or so, why gamble? Weddings are more of a thank you from the church as much as they are a convenience for tax payers.


David Dodd Nov. 21, 2009 @ 10:26 p.m.

Pete, I would agree with you on my first marriage (I knocked her up, shotgun time), but in my second I've been married for seventeen years. I'm really pissed off at her at the moment, but it will blow over. I married her because she is awesome. It wasn't about sex. It was about tons of respect. It was about marrying someone I knew would make me a better person and hopes that I could also make her a better person. Sometimes marriages are like that. I hope you have one like that some day. It's totally worth it.


PistolPete Nov. 21, 2009 @ 11:01 p.m.

Ok. Point taken. Would you agree that the majority of marriages are either church, GF, or society influenced? I don't think I'll get "married". I'm not really for the term "common law married" either. I think that's society's way of having their cake and eating it too. Without judging solely on this issue, I have to wonder about a man who thinks to himself,"Maybe being married will make myself or this person a better human". No offense implied, gringo. I know the old joke is that men are hunter/gatherers but I don't think that's too far off the mark.

About six months ago, I helped my GF's husband move his father from one part of town to the other. The guy is 91 years old. He needed an apartment that offered a walk-in shower. We tried to talk him out of it but he wouldn't listen. We're about to move across the street from him. Last night, he told his son that he was moving back to his old apartment complex. The reason? He wants to flirt with the old ladies again. Bless his horny heart and I'm pissed because I HATE moving people as it is AND he's willing to pony up $900 to break his lease but ultimately you can't fault the guy. I told his son to tell him that if he had $900 to blow so he could flirt, he could pony up some dinero to pay for a mover. And to make matters worse, his"GF"just moved in next door to him and now she wants to move as well. I KNOW I'm going to moving 3 different people in the next 2 months. Actually 7 if you count how many heads live in 3 housholds.


DaniLauder Nov. 21, 2009 @ 11:22 p.m.

GF influenced. Or maybe sister involvement. My sisters warned me about my first husband and it didn't work out. Next time I will listen I think


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 12:39 a.m.

re:#32: You are going to quote "Anal retentive" to me from wiki? Why is that particular diagnosis (besides the oedipal complex) the reference point for people who know nothing about psychology or psychoanalysis? Maybe you can research that one. No, I don't overanalyze you--it really doesn't take that much analysis, much less overanalysis to read you, Pete. I simply remember what you have said in the past and take your current statements in the context of the sum total.

re: #35: "asses"

re:#36: This just in! Gringo follows Eddie Izzard on Twitter!

re:#39: Telling us you were bored by our convo on wedding dresses would not have ruined the discussion, Pete, any more than if I chose to step into your "endless" monologues on football and remind you that you are very repetitive on that subject. Remember, you aren't really god.

re:#41: Can you consider that perhaps your admittedly slowed mental growth due to PTSD has interfered with your understanding of matters of the adult heart? And your ability to speak accurately for the majority of males? You have to "wonder" about a man who considers how he and his life partner will influence each other for the better?

re: #44: Oh, hi there, Josh-ette!


Josh Board Nov. 22, 2009 @ 12:54 a.m.

Hey SD...if you think Dani is a "joshette" why not collect $5,000 to your favorite charity.

I notice none of you idiots decided to take me up on that. Hmmmm...wonder why.

Also, if I really had the time or inclination to create fake characters, I would have them calling all the idiots out on being idiots. I wouldn't just have them make a comment like: next time I'll listen to my sisters.

What, in the world, would a comment like that even mean? Why in the heck would I create a fake character to say that? It absolutely makes no sense. But then...many of your theories on people don't.


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 12:57 a.m.

I'll check the IP address on my own--don't need to enter a wager with a non-gentleman.

"But then...many of your theories on people don't."

Let's hear it Josh, oh master theorizer of humanity. Examples of my theories not bearing out, whatever those might be.


Josh Board Nov. 22, 2009 @ 12:59 a.m.

Okay...well, I was hoping to get $100 to one of the charities I work with. It's looking like that isn't going to happen. So...

remember once you asked me to talk to the web administrators about someone here bothering you? Well, that same person will verify, that about a week ago, I asked her to remove one of "arinomans" posts, because I found it offensive. I actually wasn't offended, personally. I just hated reading it and its racist remarks. I saw the post was still there, and I sent her another email asking why she didn't remove it. She sent me an email saying "I just edited out the line that I deemed offensive".

So, two things. You can contact that woman (Jane) to verify the story. And, if you STILL think that was all part of my master plan, then I'd love to know how me creating a fake character, to post crazy racist rants, would then have the real me contact our web administrator, to have them erased...only to have arinoman come back in another post and accuse the Reader of censoring his words.

That would probably satisfy you and Geek, as to my identity NOT being arinonman. As to anyone else that posts here, I can prove I'm not them as easily.

But that would be $100 to charity, and we'll get the ball rolling on that.

If that isn't worth it to you women...well, just IGNORE any person posting that says something you don't care for. Or that you think is a character created by someone else. Why draw attention to that person?

After all...if I was "creating" other screen names, wouldn't that be accomplishing what I want? To get under peoples skin or whatever it is you think my reason is for doing that?

(we need Fred to jump in here with some of his theories on the subject)


Josh Board Nov. 22, 2009 @ 1:11 a.m.

SD....if you have the ability to check IP addresses...well, for the love of God (or a brain eating lizard), why didn't you do that a long time ago, and end all you and Geeks crazy conspiracy theories a long time ago?!

And, you just called me a "non-gentleman". How dare you!

If I were wearing a white glove right now, and you were in my presence, I'd slowly pull off said glove, and slap you in the face!

Good day, ma'am!


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 1:20 a.m.

I am waiting for my dept. to return the entire message sent them, so I can check the IP address. I do not think it will turn out to be you, Josh. I don't think you are capable of quoting the theories (however hodge-podged they were) that goatttfish quoted. If you had half the knowledge he did, you wouldn't be writing the blogs you do.

If you slapped me in the face, there would be consequences beyond your wildest dreams. As Pete might say, "Bank on that, sweetie." ;)


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 1:24 a.m.

re: #48: Well and good. "RobertScorpio" is probably just your doppelganger. I'm sure your stepbrother is posting as someone here, too, but don't have time or inclination to form a theory on it. As for getting under people's skin, I admit that you don't have to try very hard.


PistolPete Nov. 22, 2009 @ 1:31 a.m.

SD? I never said you overanalyzed me. I said you overanalyze people's comments. HUGE difference. I don't bring up football quite that often. The other night I used it once and just ran with it. I also wonder about any person, married or not, that tries to change another human. Have we as humans learned ANYTHING?


Russ Lewis Nov. 22, 2009 @ 1:34 a.m.

"don't need to enter a wager with a non-gentleman." Now that's a convenient way out of a confrontation or a challenge.


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 2:02 a.m.

Since you feel you've gotta jump in, russl: It isn't my confrontation or challenge, and I was not the person to bring it up. I said I had no real interest in knowing whether or not Josh is RobertScorpio, though I agreed it was a possibility. Again: I am concerned with who started asking around about me in my place of business. Oh and yes, I do not enter into wagers with non-gentlemen. Problem with that or comment?


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 4:54 a.m.

re:#52: Pete wondered: "I also wonder about any person, married or not, that tries to change another human. Have we as humans learned ANYTHING?"

I didn't take gringo's comment about he and his wife influencing each other for the better to mean that they planned to try and manipulate each other's personalities. It sounds to me--from everything he's blogged or commented--like they have a pretty healthy, communicative relationship. I do agree that attempting to change others to conform to our own needs and desires is something we all have to go through, and in most cases, learn the hard way to give up. It is liberating when you do give up on it. Btw, I hope you don't confuse my pointing out racist or sexist content in your writing with trying to change you, Pete. It is about social justice and hopefully influencing the expansion of someone's views, not necessarily about trying to change someone's personality.

Pete redoubled: "I never said you overanalyzed me. I said you overanalyze people's comments. HUGE difference."

Actually, you did say that I overanalyzed you, Pete. Here:

"My comment about the playground was just that-a comment. I don't see anyone else on these boards picking it apart subtle nuance by subtle nuance. Again, you WAAAAAAAAAY overanalyzed it."

"Overanalysis" is an easy rejoinder, as is a diagnosis of "anal retentive." If you put as much passionate attention into these responses as you do football discussions and smack talk, maybe we could have a real conversation ;)


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 7:10 a.m.

The name of “Mr. Huge,” Jeorge Tripps, is inspiration in and of itself. However, the descriptions of his product by our poster are yet more inspiring, so much so that I have decided to write a one act piece, to incorporate all of these juicy nouns, adjectives, and prepositional phrases.

Characters for my next play:

Swollen Pickle—protagonist; guerilla poet and sporadic barista. Saffron Squeeze—Pickle’s girl, an open mic night groupie and guerilla poet

Jumbo Fuzz—Pickle’s Dad Aqua-Puss Analog Delay—Pickle’s mom

Red Llama Overdrive—Pickle’s sporadic boss, owner of café called “The Crunch Knob.”

Green Rhino Overdrive II—Red Llama’s son and Pickle’s best friend Foot Pig Fuzz—Pickle’s eccentric neighbor; gay cop with a foot fetish

Sample of Pickle’s high energy extemporaneous recitations at “The Crunch Knob” on guerilla jam open mic night:

Dig the magic of his vintage pedal, the most sought-after and corpulent

Way Huge pedal!

Must have your… quiet relay-based true bypass

Your… super high-gain fuzz!

smooth or opened his fuzz sustains with clipping diodes Cliff jacks, tone stack Scoop! Control-- aluminum anodized chassis; check his Military spec Teflon wire vibe

Peace out!

From advance reviews of “Swollen Pickle’s Way Huge Adventure:”

[This play is] “Distinguished by remarkable girth and sizzle.” –The Dramatist

Daniels’s work ranges “from mild crunch to Armageddon,” and has "more fuzz than a moldy peach!"— Jam Quarterly


PistolPete Nov. 22, 2009 @ 8:45 a.m.

Again SD, my comments aren't neccessarily a reflection of how I think. I'll bet more people than not would agree with me that you tend to pick apart what people say. Once again, I never said you overanalyzed me. Is it not entirely possible to have an opinion on something without fully believing in that opinion? Go ahead and say no. I'll give a perfect example.


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 8:55 a.m.

Pete, it is sad that your only reply is a transparent attempt to mobilize others' opinions against me. I do not "pick apart" others' posts any more than anyone else. If you feel that I do, it is because you are very much like a case study of some kind, and provide tons of dysfunctional material to analyze. I wouldn't even do that, but for your racist and sexist agendas, which give me carte blanche. Example of what? I'm not sure what you are talking about by having an opinion without fully believing it. Are you offering this as a way to interpret your supposedly not quite full commitment to the logical conclusions/consequences of your own racist and sexist philosophies?


SurfPuppy619 Nov. 22, 2009 @ 8:57 a.m.

"don't need to enter a wager with a non-gentleman." Now that's a convenient way out of a confrontation or a challenge.

By russl

AND one that you would much about-since you're the expert in finding a way out of a confrontation or a challenge-right "burger boy"!


PistolPete Nov. 22, 2009 @ 9:06 a.m.

LMAO SD! I'm not trying to mobilize anyone against you. I also LOVE the fact that you continuously bring up my racism and sexism. You'll notice that I almost never bring race into any conversation unless someone else does. As for my blatant sexism, all I got to say is that you sound like a bitter old hag. Men rule the universe. Now get your ass back in the kitchen and make me a sammich! :-D

Like I said, SD, NOBODY felt the need to pick apart my playground comment except you! Shouldn't that tell you something? It tells me that MOST people who read it either laughed or agreed and moved the f*** on. You didn't. You overanalyzed it line by line like a fine E.E.Cummings poem.


SDaniels Nov. 22, 2009 @ 10:31 a.m.

"You'll notice that I almost never bring race into any conversation unless someone else does."

Patently false. You came in on this platform, lifting up your boy parts and crying "N___r" to anyone who'd listen, trying to feel out the situation. When you found that it wasn't to the majority's liking, you cooled it a bit. Now, basically the only meter of your behavior is gringo's daddy approval, which is unfortunately for us, a bit indulgent.

"As for my blatant sexism, all I got to say is that you sound like a bitter old hag."

And you sound like a bitter young psychopath being called out by a desirable, but unattainable woman of much more influence in the universe than yourself. Sandwich? Sure--just ignore that granular white powder on top of the mustard--just a new designer salt. Smooch

"Like I said, SD, NOBODY felt the need to pick apart my playground comment except you! Shouldn't that tell you something?"

Again with the easy conclusion of overanalysis; what it says: the refuge of the laaaazzzzyyy.

If I were to analyze your statements like an e.e. cummings poem, you'd know it. And your wallet would feel the difference, too. ;)


SurfPuppy619 Nov. 22, 2009 @ 10:33 a.m.

Hey you two, stop acting like children!


MsGrant Nov. 22, 2009 @ 11:51 a.m.

Regarding marriage - there are some people that meet someone that, at the risk of sounding really cheesy, completes them.

"It was about marrying someone I knew would make me a better person".

Damn, Refried, if that does not sum it up.

I have become a better person because of my husband, and I cannot imagine my life without him. And for those that say you do not need a piece of paper, I can tell you this: My wedding day was the happiest day of my life. It had nothing to do with religion (although we were married by a Rabbi, who knew that keeping it short and sweet is the way to go, AND gave us each a glass of wine as part of the process). It was a celebration. A huge, fun party to celebrate love with family and friends. And it is still going strong.


Origami_Astronaught Nov. 23, 2009 @ 10:49 p.m.

I didn't have the patience to read all the comments so I hope I'm not interrupting anything monumental in order to say "hi" and "sweet blog, i see what you mean about the batman thing now" and "stinky pinky for a mothers refute of an offspring".

  • Number Two

CuddleFish Nov. 23, 2009 @ 11:04 p.m.

Dang, Pike, you didn't have to go to the trouble. ;)


SDaniels Nov. 24, 2009 @ 12:39 a.m.

Pikey, I actually addressed the subject of the blog. Take the time to read #56. smooch


FullFlavorPike Nov. 24, 2009 @ 9:36 p.m.

Not an ID hacker, yo! Sort of heartbroken ya'll suspect me of such. Of COURSE I noticed Daniels' address of the matter at hand :)


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!