patrick.net

MarsAttacks! says

Yes, but more like to get them off track of their topic so then he can start having his fun with them.

Isn't this what trolls do?

So are there any nominees for the reincarnated "Shrekgrinch"? Perhaps he has commented already on this one.

I miss shrek. Dueling with shrek was like shooting rabbits with a cannon. Almost too easy. Now I will have to engage with people who are smarter (that would be almost anyone) and where I actually have to think first.

bob2356 says

I miss shrek. Dueling with shrek was like shooting rabbits with a cannon. Almost too easy. Now I will have to engage with people who are smarter (that would be almost anyone) and where I actually have to think first.

I'm all for beating a dead horse, if it allows for closure.

Shrek wasn't stupid - it was obvious that he's functional in society. He claimed to be a programmer of some type; many people who work in the sciences lack the ability to function appropriately in the real world. If I were a professional, I would venture to guess that he has some issues dealing with people in the real world, some type of personality disorder wherein he takes a perverse joy in creating disharmony. Perhaps he's Borderline Personality disorder; I've seen two borderlines clear a room with their behaviors.

But I'm not a professional therapist, so this is pure conjecture.

shooting rabbits with a cannon would be almost impossible. You'd have better luck swatting them with the ram-rod.

shooting rabbits with a Gatlin Gun ... now, that may be effective population control.

Bap33 says

shooting rabbits with a cannon would be almost impossible. You'd have better luck swatting them with the ram-rod.

shooting rabbits with a Gatlin Gun ... now, that may be effective population control.

Maybe it'd be more like catching gophers with M-80's. We used to do that...

I tip my 40 in memory of Shrekgrinch. He was a loyal water-boy for all gentlemen of stature and merit.

Actually, I got one too many complaints about Shrek so I've deleted him for now.

But I'm sure he'll be back in some incarnation.

Then you should delete me too, then you guys can sit around Liberally glad hand each other, void of any counter points to your non sense.

This thread is testament to you guys ALL OF YOU, hypercritical double standards. Patrick you send emails to folks telling them about civility and to be nice. Yet you tolerate this thread, which was started as an instigation to stir up Shrek and get a rise out of him. Now he's deleted.

You guys have fun sucking each others Harry Reid.

elliemae says

I'm all for beating a dead horse, if it allows for closure.

I'm not beating a dead horse, I always thought shrek was hysterical. His postings were nonsense of course, but great fun to poke holes in. The man had something like 10,000 postings and managed to totally avoid presenting a single actual fact even by accident. An admirable accomplishment.

Tenouncetrout says

Then you should delete me too, then you guys can sit around Liberally glad hand each other, void of any counter points to your non sense.

Shrek was a self proclaimed asshole who hijacked every thread. You post your (often unintelligible) comments without personal attacks. You don't hijack every thread, which he did. You aren't nasty, accusing, etc...

Tot, you're not a troll. So far as I can tell, you're a cool guy that I'd hang out with if I were in Florida. We may not have the same views, but you understand the difference between the real world and the interwebs. If you want to leave, that's your choice - but you would be sorely missed.

Shrek, on the other hand, will not. I do hope that he stays gone; if he comes back, it'd be nice if he understood the difference between conversation and trolling.

Yes, this thread is too much, just a personal insult. But it is funny too, IMHO.

I don't really want to be a policeman/parent. I need some better kind of moderation system.

bob2356 says

The man had something like 10,000 postings and managed to totally avoid presenting a single actual fact even by accident.

Maybe he had some facts in there, but I agree that it was really all about his hate for Obama and liberals.

Yes, this thread is too much, just a personal insult. But it is funny too, IMHO.

It's as if some people believe it's a conspiracy. IMHO it wasn't about his beliefs, it was about his approach.

Marcus says

Shrek on the other hand truly seemed hell bent on adding a lot of teabagger Glenn Beck bs to a forum that is (or was) mostly frequented by fairly moderate individuals.

Which is fine. The problem for me was his basic unwillingness to discuss any point beyond a "snort-gurgle-heehee-snort-ah,screwyou" level, and his complete lack of understanding of what constitutes crossing the line between personal and public discussion standards.

Yes, this thread is too much, just a personal insult. But it is funny too, IMHO.

I don't really want to be a policeman/parent. I need some better kind of moderation system.

bob2356 says

The man had something like 10,000 postings and managed to totally avoid presenting a single actual fact even by accident.

Maybe he had some facts in there, but I agree that it was really all about his hate for Obama and liberals.

Patrick, why are you putting up my post as the example of personal insult? My statement may be a little bit (just a teeny tiny bit) of hyperbole, but I did say it was an admirable accomplishment. I will suitably modify my statement. Shrek never presented me with a single fact. Better?

I was the (probably the only) one that said I missed him. I never took him seriously and actually enjoyed jousting with him. I was always amused when he/she/it would present some incoherent jumble of a statement then tell everyone they had a reading comprehension problem. Very funny. I will admit the Obama is responsible for everything from the big bang to toenail fungus schtick got a little old.

bob2356 says

I was the (probably the only) one that said I missed him

You'll have to aim better. Ha!

I don't really want to be a policeman/parent. I need some better kind of moderation system.

Na' I think this thread is working out fine. At least it let's people express their honest feelings.

If nothing else, this thread brings up an important question. Can liberals and conservatives constructively talk with each other in a forum? Also, can either talk with moderates without accusing the moderates of being their polar opposites?

Perhaps elliemae said it best with the animate gif of a guy banging his head against the wall. But perhaps that's the only way to tear down the walls between the left and the right.

Patrick,
It's your field, your ball, and your game. You pick the teams and the rules. That is exactly how it should be. If Schrek don't like it, he can start Schrek.net or whatever.

Oh, my... I disappear for a few weeks and I miss the death of my favorite cartoon character. I'll almost miss the insane borderline/antisocial rantings coupled with endless personal attacks.

Mars Attacks = Shrekgrinch

There is no doubt. People like shrekgrinch don't have friends. They have imaginary friends that are characters in their psyches whom they play when their old characters finally out-stay their welcome. The Internet is swarming with them.

My best professional guess is that people like Shrekgrinch/Mars Attacks don't function anywhere else but on the Internet. The Internet allows them enough anonymity to carry out their desire for connection that they won't get in the real world because most people won't tolerate these people in person for very long.

It's quite sad actually. These are people who have never had a secure primary attachment. There is always a vast gaping hole in their psyches that can't ever be filled.

Oh well. Make no mistake Shrekgrinch/Mars Attacks will always exist in some form on forums like patrick.net. They need these places to feel connected. They will always find their way in and will elude even the best attempts at moderation. Boundaries and limits are anathema to these people. They can't tolerate them.

remember Sim, all there is of Shrek is words on a screen ... a made-up persona .... the creator could just as well be your best friend just having fun roll-playing ... or it could be Bill Clinton killing some time between inturns (lol) .... or, the persona could match the author to a tee .... but, at any rate, the entire blogville area is make believe.

Hey it worked! You said Hey Patrick and I got the comment as an email.

I could ban all partisan references, but that might be too intrusive. I want people to be able to say what they mean, as long as they are polite about it.

On the other hand, I was thinking of automatically substituting words, like "my boyfriend" for "libtard", etc.

I don't know why you guys worry and fuss over people like Shrek, I never really read his posts. Or follow them. I got a bigger rise out of responding to people responding to his posts.

He's not a very creative hater. He couldn't think of anything to call Obama but "Obambi", that got old, I'm sure he bored him self with it, he used it so many times. For example he could have alternated using "Obamadalilama" or "Ob-ba-bop-bow-ba-mow-mow-O-bop-a-ma-ma Git a job job get a job job. Sha na"

On the other hand, I was thinking of automatically substituting words, like "my boyfriend" for "libtard", etc.

LOL

Bap33 says

If Schrek don't like it, he can start Schrek.net or whatever.

Schrek.net sounds like a hacking site. Plus it appears that the domain name is already taken.

MarsAttacks! says

Either way, Shrek definitely seemed to have an impact on the rest of you. No wonder he got a kick out of all of this.

Darn. I was just about thinking that Mars was not Shrek, but only Shrek would say something that self-ego-stroking.

Conservatives destroyed this country 1995-2005.

So I'm a little sensitive about them trolling about with their victory laps now, yes.

Tenouncetrout says

He couldn't think of anything to call Obama but "Obambi",

I never understood the whole Obambi term. Is it a reference to Bambi, the deer from the Disney movie? If so, how is that an insult?

If you're going to insult a politician, do it in a why that explains why your insulting him. Almost every politician, including Obama, does things that merit legitimate ridicule. So there is no need to resort to personal attacks against them.

For example, I wouldn't call Rush Limbaugh fat. I'd call him a racist, washed-out hack that licks the boots of big corporations. The fact that he's fat isn't why people hate him. Santa Claus is just as fat. But at least Santa is jolly.

[OK, yes Rush is not technically a politician, but close enough.]

Bellingham Bob says

Conservatives destroyed this country 1995-2005.

2000-2011 would have been my range. I though the 1990s were pretty good. Of course some of the issues plaguing America today have their roots in the 1980s and the Reagan administration, particularly the deregulation, the tax cuts for the wealthy, and the rise in the rich-poor gap.

Bap33 says

remember Sim, all there is of Shrek is words on a screen ... a made-up persona ....

simchaland says

Oh, my... I disappear for a few weeks and I miss the death of my favorite cartoon character.

Hmmm... Did I miss something here?

I think we have some agreement.

The point where we may differ is the "why" behind the creation of the character Shrekgrinch/Mars Attacks online.

Dan8267 says

I though the 1990s were pretty good.

The early 1990s sucked. Things turned around in 1993, but that was largely thanks to the Fed easing:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2rq

(blue is employment rate and red is the Fed Funds rate)

Part of the economic story of the late 90s was cheap oil and cheaper stuff from China I think. Those were nice tailwinds for the larger economy but unsustainable.

Trade with China:
1990 $15B imports, -$10B/yr balance
1995 $45B, -$33B
2000 $100B, -$83B
2005 $242B, -$200B

Trade with Japan:
1990 $90B imports, $-40B/yr balance
1995 $120B, -$60B
2000 $140B, -$80B
2005 $140B, -$80B

Mass-market PC GUI and internet jazz helped the late 1990s, but that wasn't the whole story. Behind the scenes we were being sold down the river.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2rt

^ Financial sector debt to GDP

same graph with corporate debt in red:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2ru

Bap33 says

Patrick,

It's your field, your ball, and your game. You pick the teams and the rules. That is exactly how it should be. If Schrek don't like it, he can start Schrek.net or whatever.

I agree, but only because I know for a fact it didn't take my being born into any high position to make this site.

There's a saying "The free press is for those who can afford one." But now that you don't need to buy printing machinery, it really is a free press at last.

Out of all the things I posted on this site, this thread has gotten the most comments (145, er 146 including this one, so far).

There's one good thing you can say about Shrek: he certainly has brought this community together -- perhaps together as a lynch mob, but together nonetheless.

Obligatory:

Just repeating an expression of hate over and over doesn't convince anyone of anything except that you're definitely not using reason.

ShrekBastard says

I said that 71 times? wow...and it STILL hasn't sunk in.

In all seriousness Shrek, here's a bit of wisdom. Although Fox News viewers are convinced of a statement's truth the more times they hear it, those of us with critical thinking skills understand that the number of times a talking point is parroted does not affect how truthful it is.

You can repeat "the Earth is only 6000 years old" as many times as you like. That does not mean we'll reject carbon dating and accept the 6000 year figure as correct.

Instead, what we want to hear is evidence that your statement is correct rather than "you're a libruh if you don't accept this". Do you understand what I am saying?

I have nothing constructive to say on this topic so I will offer some advice.

Moneyworth's 2012 Financial Predictions Underclass Make Over Edition:

Invest in a good old fashioned calculator in 2012. Enter in the two digits that make up your entire net worth. Multiply by 0.001. That will be your new net worth by the end of 2012. Special note for Americans whose net worth begins with this symbol "-". You should divide by 0.001 to get your final end of 2012 net worth.

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

Enter in the two digits that make up your entire net worth. Multiply by 0.001. That will be your new net worth by the end of 2012.

You're assuming a non-negative net worth to start with! Most Americans probably don't meet that criteria.

Dan8267 says

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

Enter in the two digits that make up your entire net worth. Multiply by 0.001. That will be your new net worth by the end of 2012.

You're assuming a non-negative net worth to start with! Most Americans
probably don't meet that criteria.

See my special note, dear sir. You are not the first American to be confused by mathematical symbols such as "-". I suspect you merely overlooked my imperative.

ShrekBastard says

the constant bullshit about Republicans being racists when actual historical events clearly shows that the Democrats had that label in the bag for themselves.

Ugh. This is exactly what I meant. Instead of presenting a logical, fact-oriented argument to demonstrate or refute a point, you take the conversation into a whole different, and often irrelevant, direction that does not relate to the issue at hand. Then when we refute your position or correct it so it is aligned with history, you just say we're full of shit.

For example, yes it is true that prior to the 1960s the Democratic party was a bunch of racists. But in 1960s the two parties reversed rolls as all the racists went into the Republican party. That doesn't mean all Republicans are racist, but it does mean that most racists are Republicans. Today's Republicans are not the party of Eisenhower or Lincoln. If they were, it would be a much better party. Similarly, the Democratic party isn't what it was in the 1950s either.

Now I don't know what percentage of Republicans are racist. I suspect it's a minority, but the ones that are racist are the most vocal. They are the Tea Party members holding up signs like this:

But to get back to the point, you see that I've explained why Democrats are no longer the party of racism, even though they used to be, and I've shown why the Tea Party is racist with visual evidence. Evidence and reasoning are the keys to making a successful argument.

Btw, I've already given my list of 10 reasons why Obama is a bad president. But my list has nothing to do with the type of crap that the Tea Party spouts. There is no excuse for holding up a sign like the one above. And I say that as someone who does not and has never supported Obama. The difference between Shrek and me is that I have legitimate complaints about Obama's policies whereas Shrek just hates that a Democrat, any Democrat, is in office.

If you can't say bad things about both parties, and even good things about a few (albeit very few) members of each party, then you're probably just a bigot.