patrick.net

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.

I've never been to a clinic but I see the above as an unnecessary privilege for the underclass and their "clinics". I own three witchdoctors myself and they routinely cure me of the taint of evil spirits. I hardly see the underclass mastering the mystic arts to the degree they would need protection from Demon Imps.

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

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.

Ah, yes I did overlook your imperative. I got distracted by one of Shrek's comments.

In correction, I do believe your mathematical model for negative net-worth individuals, or rather riffraff, is quite accurate, old chap. Well done, indeed. Jolly good sport.

Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

I own three witchdoctors myself and they routinely cure me of the taint of evil spirits.

Strangely, I usually go to the doctor to cure my taint of evil spirits.

Dan8267 says

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...
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.

I disagree, well with the part about a minority of Republicans being racist. I agree with the whole 60s party switch.

I disagree because everyone is racist to some degree, Democrats, Republicans, white, black it does not matter. There is ample sociological evidence that the nature of people is to be racist. It is natural to show a bias towards people that look like you, even if you don't "hate" those that don't. There might be very few people that are truly not racist, but they are the exception not the rule.

I think that it is more a discussion about degree. In the US the south has always been more extreme in it's racism. It is much better, but even today the south is very racist compared to the rest of the nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28Alabama-t.html?pagewanted=all

The "solid south" has always seemed to vote against the party that most recently advocated major changes in racial equality.

After the Republicans freed the slaves the south voted Democratic for generations until...

In the 60s the Democrats pushed for equal rights, and the south started voting Republican.

If the Republicans did some large racial equality push I would wager that the south would become Democratic again, or perhaps the Tea Party would become a viable 3rd party with the whole of the south behind it.

This is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you Shrek. First, the fact that you think I'm a part of "the left" shows you have no comprehension of my actual political philosophies. Remember, I posted the list of the 10 reasons that Obama was a bad president. That alone should show I'm not a leftist or a Democrat fanboy.

Second, you always insist that people have to 100% agree with every crazy thing that comes out of your mouth or they must be 100% against everything you say. This is not how real people work. It's not a freaking war between you and everyone else. Try to find some common ground for once.

Third, even when a person partially agrees with something you say, you insist that you must have "trick them" into contradicting themselves. Ugh. This just makes it hard to agree with you on the rare occasions you say something sensible.

Finally, you take any disagreement to be cause for belligerence instead of resolution. This kind of uncompromising behavior is not commendable. It's the kind of childish behavior that Congress has recently demonstrated much to the angst of the entire U.S. population.

leoj707 says

There is ample sociological evidence that the nature of people is to be racist.

I would say that there is ample evolutionary evidence that humans are inherently groupist. Racism is just one arbitrary way of forming groups. However, there was a study that showed even if you randomly assign people into one of two groups, they will come to dislike the other group.

So I'd say it's human nature to form first, second, and even third order coalitions in order to defeat other coalitions. The basis of those coalitions is not so much important as the fact that they are used to steal resources from others.

There is also evidence that chimps and dolphins can form higher order coalitions. Perhaps chimps and humans evolved this ability form a common ancestor, but the fact that dolphins also do this suggests convergent evolution, which in turn, suggests that the formation of such coalitions and the associated groupism is an important strategy for acquiring scarce resources.

As such, even if racism never existed, some other form of groupism would take its place. Perhaps classism, religious sectism, musical preferencism. It doesn't matter. Just as long as a coalition can be form and it is profitable to use that coalition to take resources from others.

Dan8267 says

This is why it's impossible to have a productive conversation with you Shrek.

Remember shrek's goal is to:
Shrek-MarsAttacks! says

[G]et [others] off track of their topic so then he can start having his fun with them.

Not too have a productive conversation.

p.s. Nationalism (or patriotism) is just another form of groupism.

leoj707 says

so then he can start having his fun with them.

Why does that sound perverted?

Dan8267 says

leoj707 says

so then he can start having his fun with them.

Why does that sound perverted?

Hmmmm, I guess this brings the thread full circle...

Dan8267 says

At least we can be consoled that Shrek died doing what he loved best and probably multitasking by posting on patrick.net at the same time.

Maybe posting on Pnet is not so much multitasking for shrek, but in "support" of doing what he loved best. Perhaps on that fateful day he had derailed 42 threads, and "had his fun with them".

Hey patrick

Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums. Also, I have seen moderators on other forums doing IP checks to verify if a user has multiple logins (and it is treated as a ban-able offense)

Dan8267 says

I would say that there is ample evolutionary evidence that humans are inherently groupist. Racism is just one arbitrary way of forming groups. However, there was a study that showed even if you randomly assign people into one of two groups, they will come to dislike the other group...
As such, even if racism never existed, some other form of groupism would take its place. Perhaps classism, religious sectism, musical preferencism. It doesn't matter. Just as long as a coalition can be form and it is profitable to use that coalition to take resources from others.

Yes, yes, and yes.

"Race" by appearance is just an easy outward way for people to self-select into groups. When actually trying to define race by DNA the waters get muddy very fast. Ahhh... perhaps one day there will be a future utopia where people ignore outside appearances, and discriminate based on differences in DNA.

immigrant says

Hey patrick

Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums. Also, I have seen moderators on other forums doing IP checks to verify if a user has multiple logins (and it is treated as a ban-able offense)

Woohoo, the "hey patrick" thing worked again! I'm never sure that any particular email will really get sent. Email is really flaky compared to the web.

I guess I'm kind of opposed to ban polls. It's often exactly the unpopular opinion that people should really listen to (eg, world is flat, evolution, black people are actually human no matter how much you paid for them). But I know what you mean about a few commenters poisoning the air. So maybe I should make some counter for flag clicks per user, and just ban the people who consistently get flagged for personal insults.

leoj707 says

discriminate based on differences in DNA.

Ever see Gattaca? All that could happen for sure.

leoj707 says

perhaps one day there will be a future utopia where people ignore outside appearances

Nay, that would never happen. Hotties will always be treat much better than uglies. You can't change that. Even babies are subject to that prejudice. Studies have shown that babies look at beautiful faces longer than ugly ones. It's hard-coded in our DNA.

Perhaps I am a hypocrite, because as a hottie, I've always taken advantage of that. It's how I get most of my jobs.

immigrant says

Did you ever think having a policy to let users starts ban polls? If 75% (or whatever number you choose) of the voters vote yes, then the user is banned from the forums.

The problem with banning users is that it promotes the kind of polarization of a community that is at the heart of the problem. I'd suggest just using the ignore feature if someone is too annoying. That way it's an individual decision.

leoj707 says

Remember shrek's goal is to:
Shrek-MarsAttacks! says

[G]et [others] off track of their topic so then he can start having his fun with them.

Not too have a productive conversation.

The irony of this thread is that Shrek has clearly demonstrated the reasons his account was deleted in the first place.

Dan8267 says

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 it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.
Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?

Tenouncetrout says

But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.

We've all posted pics of people at some point. Doesn't make us racist. If it's a pic of us holding the sign, that's different.

You have an avatar of a dinosaur, doesn't make you a dead sack of bones. And I'm not a dog (nor do I play one on tv). It's just a pic that he used to make his point - and there are a lot of pics of tea partiers with offensive signs.

Tenouncetrout says

Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?

You're better than this, trout. really, you are.

Come on Ellie you're better than that too.
If I post a pic it's in context to what I'm saying. And no one else or any other group is implied to own the impetus of my choosing the pic.
The OP posts that race baiting pic, then claims people are marching around holding signs with that pic. Well where's the picture of the tea party rally members holding the sign with that pic?

From what I'm seeing, Tea Party members are not at home making creative Photo Shop pictures to deface anyone. They are far to angry for that. At best they crudely scrawling slogans, typos and all, with a sharpie on poster board.