Did any of you notice the change in tone, the pursed lips, the different sentence structure in the non-planned, not-on-the-teleprompter speaking Obama did between his speeches about ISIL before and during his 'reassurance' speeches that he was stepping up the attacks?
He was disgusted. He was disappointed--
In all those of you who gave in to the panic. In all those of you who didn't remember that you're still more likely to die of poverty or from a corrupt police officer or a race riot or a drunk driver or a deer crossing the road than a lone wolf shooting. Though it IS now slightly more likely that a terrorist will kill you than a bolt of lightning, the truly troubling odds are that you will much more likely suffer from terror in your mind. That would be 100%. So his advisors told him to comfort you all instead of maintaining the message he was correctly sending.
And he fell for it. That was the first true victory for ISIL. Congratulations, voters. You've handed ISIL a victory by being hysterical. You got terrified and let it affect you. Good goin'.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Ambassa-DON'T? How To Fix THIS Problem . . .
-n! Blog function on!
It is on.
I wasn't sure. This microphone's been acting up. So, I've only got about a minute to ask this question because of the plankton shortage, gotta dive, but it's important. I can't find anything about what kind of budget constraints on international visitation Congress can make or is forced to have. It's time to speculate on the worst possible outcome. Average human intelligence ISN'T that great. If Trump manages to win the presidency by mob mentality turning out to vote, he won't be ABLE to be chief diplomat.
He's possibly being banned from multiple countries. How many millions of dollars would that cost the American people?
Unable to calculate without better-defined parameters.
No, Shelob, I don't want you to calculate it. I want to find out where those rulings cover going off--[transmission ends.]
It is on.
I wasn't sure. This microphone's been acting up. So, I've only got about a minute to ask this question because of the plankton shortage, gotta dive, but it's important. I can't find anything about what kind of budget constraints on international visitation Congress can make or is forced to have. It's time to speculate on the worst possible outcome. Average human intelligence ISN'T that great. If Trump manages to win the presidency by mob mentality turning out to vote, he won't be ABLE to be chief diplomat.
He's possibly being banned from multiple countries. How many millions of dollars would that cost the American people?
Unable to calculate without better-defined parameters.
No, Shelob, I don't want you to calculate it. I want to find out where those rulings cover going off--[transmission ends.]
Friday, December 4, 2015
Trump IS BEING Unfair . . . Childish Fantasy And Denial Not Presidential
[underwater radio modem connected as Hairy and Shelob in discussion]
You claim that Trump's demand to be treated fairly is laughable?
Of course it is! Anyone not restricted by fact can't really be fair. It's not possible.
You are speaking of his chronic inaccuracies, perhaps lies or delusions.
Yeah, he's been pretty out of it. Some of his claims are further off the mark than the most moronic-sounding pundits we've screened.
Perhaps a non-factual example of bias would be a better comparison.
Um, okay. Take those comments about language criticism.
When he decided how Obama should have spoken.
Yeah, those. If it's so necessary to refer to certain terrorists as 'radical ISLAMIC terrorists,' then the guy who shot up Planned Parenthood recently must necessarily be referred to as a 'radical Christian terrorist' or a 'radical Republican conservative terrorist.' Jim Jones and most of the people who have bombed abortion clinics would have to have a similar label!
--This IS the guy criticizing people for being politically correct. Where does he get off demanding everyone ELSE be politically incorrect THE EXACT WAY HE CHOOSES?! That's the same kind of demand political correctness is! 'You SHOULD only speak about it THIS way.'
An example of leadership.
[stops moving, pupils dilate in shock] What did you say?
Clearly he can lead people.
No, that doesn't--
And, since campaign promises are usually reversed, he could let the country go on as business as usual. Which would fit with your prediction that he would be steamrolled because of his lesser understanding of Constitutional law.
Wh--?
This would mean Congress would prefer him as president. He could make Congress more popular.
No. That's not-- Well, Congress probably WOULD become more popular steamrolling over Trump. I'd pay to watch it.
Or the other possibility would be that Trump begins leading Congress the same way he is leading others.
Out of the bounds of good sense.
From the war history you provided, the leader who can get his subordinates to follow the most blindly and do the most stupid things will be the winner in any contest. Do you not wish America to win?
What? America really can't LOSE, exactly. It could diminish in greatness through stupidity, and it could become more formidable through a more universal work ethic and an agreement of minimum virtue. I'm not speaking of just some odd battle tactic winning the day from someone who didn't expect it. I'm talking about what's good for the country and its citizens.
So you have an opinion on who should win.
You're right. I finally do.
Please derive explicitly. You did not prefer one for a long time.
All right. But you have to figure it out just like our audience does. Herr D grumbled something the other day that caught my attention. He was chatting away and went something like, "no one's good enough . . . " Can you quote that for me?
He typed that "no one of the people running is good enough to run MY country. It's a shame that we have to take just one. Hillary's experience, Trump's charisma, Biden's ethics and ability to work with everyone, Rice's intelligence--"
That's good, Shelob. I got to thinking about that. It isn't the most mature thing to do to wail about the choices you have to make. Everyone complains, but after a while, everyone needs to think about their choices in a more objective way. The questions I'm asking Shelob and all my audience is this:
IF NO ONE IS GOOD ENOUGH, BECAUSE THE OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE GREATER THAN JUST ONE PERSON, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PICK THE PERSON DECLARING THEIR GREATNESS THE LOUDEST?
OR PERHAPS THE PERSON RAISED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR BEST WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH WHO SAYS 'WE COULD ALL DO MUCH BETTER IF YOU JOIN ME AND FIGHT BY MY SIDE.' --? WHO IS THAT?
Calculations and searches underway. Will attempt to solve before commenters do. [disconnect]
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Database Comments Very Strange . . .
[recorded segment begins]
--that's not right! Trump shouldn't be criticized for THAT--
For being in favor of putting Muslim people on databases?
Well, NO. He should be outed for being an idiot, outed for being crude and incapable. Outed for going bankrupt four times. Outed for being unusually insensitive to the feelings of others. Outed for declaring he is willing to violate U.N. regs to waterboard. Outed for being someone most people couldn't look up to as a leader . . .
Why is this particular stance exempt from ridicule?
Those already exist. There's a database for EVERYTHING. There are several databases listing Zydeco musicians' availability. There are over 50,000 databases of cat pictures found on fully categorized internet sources. There are cookbook databases and fingernail clipper style databases and insurance package databases and databases cataloguing blue-eyed people . . . There are some 40 databases currently findable on the web of how many BOOGERS were picked out of individual noses!
These databases are easily accessible.
Well, sure! Mosques sometimes have membership lists that can frequently be easily hacked. Holy men are frequently not above keeping lists of who they should look in on among their followers. Calendars, appointment books, address books, PDAs, you name it!
So your stance is that Trump should only be ridiculed fairly?
Right! Can you autoblog about this?
Yes. [recorded segment ends]
--that's not right! Trump shouldn't be criticized for THAT--
For being in favor of putting Muslim people on databases?
Well, NO. He should be outed for being an idiot, outed for being crude and incapable. Outed for going bankrupt four times. Outed for being unusually insensitive to the feelings of others. Outed for declaring he is willing to violate U.N. regs to waterboard. Outed for being someone most people couldn't look up to as a leader . . .
Why is this particular stance exempt from ridicule?
Those already exist. There's a database for EVERYTHING. There are several databases listing Zydeco musicians' availability. There are over 50,000 databases of cat pictures found on fully categorized internet sources. There are cookbook databases and fingernail clipper style databases and insurance package databases and databases cataloguing blue-eyed people . . . There are some 40 databases currently findable on the web of how many BOOGERS were picked out of individual noses!
These databases are easily accessible.
Well, sure! Mosques sometimes have membership lists that can frequently be easily hacked. Holy men are frequently not above keeping lists of who they should look in on among their followers. Calendars, appointment books, address books, PDAs, you name it!
So your stance is that Trump should only be ridiculed fairly?
Right! Can you autoblog about this?
Yes. [recorded segment ends]
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
ISIL LOST AGAIN! Leiris Is The Smartest Man To Comment On ISILosers Yet
I thought Dr. Carson was almost on point when he declared that we need to point out to the world what losers ISIL is made of. Nihilism? Really? Even Congress draws their salary when they pick up their marbles and go home angry over not accomplishing what they want. And they live in the only part of Virginia where people are so stupid that the non-emergency lines at the police stations get phone calls declaring the need to move the deer crossings. Because if the deer cross there, they'll get hit, right?
Then I read about Leiris.
Helene Muyal-Leiris died in the cowardly attacks on innocent victims in Paris, France. Left behind a baby and her husband. I'm not that good at reading French, but I'm sure someone is willing to translate it for anyone willing to read it. (Took me an hour to be sure I got the gist.)
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that these are terrorists. If we don't live in fear or hatred, but go about living as joyfully as we can, THEY LOSE.
For pity's sake! Why aren't all the radio towers around Iraq blasting every frequency with recordings of all the festivals happening all over the world? We're not talking Radio Free; we're talking Radio Squeal With Delight! Show those losers what a party the REST of us can have now that they're going to blow themselves up and take 1/1,000,000th of the population with them! Everyone surviving them WILL BE HAPPIER WITHOUT THEM.
That IS most of the world, after all . . . I'm gonna go play my favorite game now.
[goofy, carefree victory dance]
Then I read about Leiris.
Helene Muyal-Leiris died in the cowardly attacks on innocent victims in Paris, France. Left behind a baby and her husband. I'm not that good at reading French, but I'm sure someone is willing to translate it for anyone willing to read it. (Took me an hour to be sure I got the gist.)
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that these are terrorists. If we don't live in fear or hatred, but go about living as joyfully as we can, THEY LOSE.
For pity's sake! Why aren't all the radio towers around Iraq blasting every frequency with recordings of all the festivals happening all over the world? We're not talking Radio Free; we're talking Radio Squeal With Delight! Show those losers what a party the REST of us can have now that they're going to blow themselves up and take 1/1,000,000th of the population with them! Everyone surviving them WILL BE HAPPIER WITHOUT THEM.
That IS most of the world, after all . . . I'm gonna go play my favorite game now.
[goofy, carefree victory dance]
Friday, November 6, 2015
Breaking Silence To Heal The Sick
[breaking medbot's security protocol to access blog function] . . . just figures. Christie was disallowed from the Republican debate right after making one of the few truly presidential speeches he's ever made.
About mental illness?
[double take] Uh, right. I forgot you were listening. Social stigma are always the enemy of positive, pragmatic leadership. I'm recalling some input I got from Herr D for a quick review of the issue. Context check module?
On.
Blog function?
On.
[approximate recreation] So, Herr D, why did you volunteer with the mentally ill?
[ccm: excerpts from chat dating back to 2013]
I had a relative with a condition. My relative was a good person and deserved more help than was available. Volunteering was something I could do to make up the slack.
What did you learn while volunteering? You're not one to single-task.
Every job IS for learning. I learned that mental illness can be improved just by socializing with consumers without showing obvious fear.
. . . and that's important in recent history.
That became important at Virginia Tech. I never found out how many of us signed the document we submitted to that office in West Eggleston Hall, where the Housing office was located at that time. It would have been more than a dozen but less than fifty. We told them in '93 that moving to a keycard system or other non-personalized system would be a bad thing.
So you made a difference?
Unfortunately, the guy who presented the document for us was told that we had an obvious conflict of interest and wouldn't be listened to. The student security jobs that were being eliminated were ours to lose.
I'm sorry you didn't feel like you accomplished anything. I don't guess you have any proof of this?
Not proof, exactly. Just every competent clinician would say that live security from a peer group might have made a difference. --And my shirts. We wore these blue uniform t-shirts that said "UUSA" for University Union of Student Activities. If we'd been wrong, there'd be a bullet hole in one of mine, maybe. Because we'd been sure that criminal or insane acts would be partially prevented by live security in ways that machines can't. Anyhow, following the Tech shooting, no one would've been interested in a bunch of alumni blurting out 'we told you so,' and it wouldn't have helped bring anyone back.
No. This isn't the only thing you've done related to this issue, is it?
No. After the Columbine shooting I sent a letter to the White House. It suggested that any incident of a minor's shooting spree or similar crime be followed by two things: investigation of the minor's history for the possibility of child abuse, and, if discovered, that the abusers be charged with reckless endangerment of the public at large.
Well, that makes sense. Did it result in anything?
I have to say the reply was underwhelming. They promised me an autographed picture of the president. It never came, so . . .
[ccm: context maintained--100%]
Yuck. People don't seem to want to talk about it, do anything about it, nothing. I must say, I'm pleased with Herr D's efforts and disappointed with the general lack of responsibility and action taken by the public and its leaders.
Shelob, what are you doing?
You aren't supposed to be blogging. medbot will need a workup.
This isn't a blog entry! Half this was written by Herr D over a year ago! I just formulated six conversations into one maintaining original context of each part. Oh, order the workup. Health is important. Blog function off--[end transmission]
About mental illness?
[double take] Uh, right. I forgot you were listening. Social stigma are always the enemy of positive, pragmatic leadership. I'm recalling some input I got from Herr D for a quick review of the issue. Context check module?
On.
Blog function?
On.
[approximate recreation] So, Herr D, why did you volunteer with the mentally ill?
[ccm: excerpts from chat dating back to 2013]
I had a relative with a condition. My relative was a good person and deserved more help than was available. Volunteering was something I could do to make up the slack.
What did you learn while volunteering? You're not one to single-task.
Every job IS for learning. I learned that mental illness can be improved just by socializing with consumers without showing obvious fear.
. . . and that's important in recent history.
That became important at Virginia Tech. I never found out how many of us signed the document we submitted to that office in West Eggleston Hall, where the Housing office was located at that time. It would have been more than a dozen but less than fifty. We told them in '93 that moving to a keycard system or other non-personalized system would be a bad thing.
So you made a difference?
Unfortunately, the guy who presented the document for us was told that we had an obvious conflict of interest and wouldn't be listened to. The student security jobs that were being eliminated were ours to lose.
I'm sorry you didn't feel like you accomplished anything. I don't guess you have any proof of this?
Not proof, exactly. Just every competent clinician would say that live security from a peer group might have made a difference. --And my shirts. We wore these blue uniform t-shirts that said "UUSA" for University Union of Student Activities. If we'd been wrong, there'd be a bullet hole in one of mine, maybe. Because we'd been sure that criminal or insane acts would be partially prevented by live security in ways that machines can't. Anyhow, following the Tech shooting, no one would've been interested in a bunch of alumni blurting out 'we told you so,' and it wouldn't have helped bring anyone back.
No. This isn't the only thing you've done related to this issue, is it?
No. After the Columbine shooting I sent a letter to the White House. It suggested that any incident of a minor's shooting spree or similar crime be followed by two things: investigation of the minor's history for the possibility of child abuse, and, if discovered, that the abusers be charged with reckless endangerment of the public at large.
Well, that makes sense. Did it result in anything?
I have to say the reply was underwhelming. They promised me an autographed picture of the president. It never came, so . . .
[ccm: context maintained--100%]
Yuck. People don't seem to want to talk about it, do anything about it, nothing. I must say, I'm pleased with Herr D's efforts and disappointed with the general lack of responsibility and action taken by the public and its leaders.
Shelob, what are you doing?
You aren't supposed to be blogging. medbot will need a workup.
This isn't a blog entry! Half this was written by Herr D over a year ago! I just formulated six conversations into one maintaining original context of each part. Oh, order the workup. Health is important. Blog function off--[end transmission]
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Black Ops Shouters Killing Green Party, Giving Hairy The Blues
Herr D regaled me with a story of political hypocrisy about this time a couple of years ago. He said that he has seen the same scene played out twice at different polling places since he's moved around a fair amount and occasionally helped bake sale volunteers carry goods for trustworthy brownies.
Apparently he's known people whose brownies he didn't dare eat?
Oh, well. Anyway, he says that in both cases, an angry young man came around to the tables where volunteers hand out sample ballots. The angry young man took one or more ballots from one or both tables. The angry young man loudly declared that everyone should do as he did and vote only for the Green Party.
Then the angry young man ruined the sample ballots and threw them away.
Obviously that angry young man SHOULD have recycled, if he was serious about the Green Party. Maybe it was a prank by someone who doesn't really vote that way? Maybe it was just a loon? Maybe Herr D missed something important about the scenes he witnessed.
I'm gonna go ahead and declare a name for the phenomenon. 'Black Ops Shouter,' or BOS. Obviously, someone attempting a clandestine operation shouldn't shout. I think this name should properly reflect how the most vocal person of a cause sometimes does a cause damage rather than helping. Sometimes this can happen because someone is a loon. Or a control freak in an already well-handled situation.
There was this show called "Bullshit!" I recently outstreamed where these two guys named Penn and Teller circulated a petition to ban dihydrogen oxide at a 'green' event. Those people banned water.
I'm gonna declare that we need to find all the craziest people we can and get them to say we should pollute more. Maybe that will make up for some of the damage done. Isn't that what we need? For crazy people to actually want something CRAZY?!
Apparently he's known people whose brownies he didn't dare eat?
Oh, well. Anyway, he says that in both cases, an angry young man came around to the tables where volunteers hand out sample ballots. The angry young man took one or more ballots from one or both tables. The angry young man loudly declared that everyone should do as he did and vote only for the Green Party.
Then the angry young man ruined the sample ballots and threw them away.
Obviously that angry young man SHOULD have recycled, if he was serious about the Green Party. Maybe it was a prank by someone who doesn't really vote that way? Maybe it was just a loon? Maybe Herr D missed something important about the scenes he witnessed.
I'm gonna go ahead and declare a name for the phenomenon. 'Black Ops Shouter,' or BOS. Obviously, someone attempting a clandestine operation shouldn't shout. I think this name should properly reflect how the most vocal person of a cause sometimes does a cause damage rather than helping. Sometimes this can happen because someone is a loon. Or a control freak in an already well-handled situation.
There was this show called "Bullshit!" I recently outstreamed where these two guys named Penn and Teller circulated a petition to ban dihydrogen oxide at a 'green' event. Those people banned water.
I'm gonna declare that we need to find all the craziest people we can and get them to say we should pollute more. Maybe that will make up for some of the damage done. Isn't that what we need? For crazy people to actually want something CRAZY?!
Friday, October 23, 2015
Speaker Selection Bungled, As Predicted By Shelob And Hairy
[underwater signal booster alignment check, process 56]
[recorded segment begins] . . . and somehow they managed to NOT know ANYTHING about how the State Department works? How did they think they were going to sound like they knew what they were doing? How did they think they were going to sound like they didn't deserve to BE on trial instead of putting someone on trial? How did they think they were going to sound like COMPETENT ADULTS? What did they think they were going to sound like?
Is the correct answer Republicans?
[flailing tentacles, dilated pupils, and sudden choking, hysterical laughter lasting 23.9 seconds] That was--that was GOOD, Shelob; good one!
It was the only question you asked that appeared answerable.
[vibrating of gills, indicative of laughter muffling] I sometimes forget how fast your processing power is and how accidentally funny you can be. Have you got any suggestions for the current political situation?
Joe Biden for Speaker of the House.
[choking, gill flutter] Um--you DO know he's Democrat, right?
Yes. He is also likely the most capable person currently in politics.
Um . . .
An elder statesman of proven ability to work professionally. Well-respected. Well-liked. Successfully works with both parties. Has what you refer to as 'stage presence,' charisma, je ne sais quoi . . .
Those three things are the same thing, Shelob. Interesting idea, just; I don't think that's very likely. Why don't you blog on that?
Will. [recorded segment ends]
Friday, October 16, 2015
Hairy's Presidential Aptitude Test
[recorded segment begins in middle of hysterical laughter lasting 19.23 seconds, bubble cloud disperses] --oooh. I'm not sure what's funnier, the group of candidates, or the pundits!
You are speaking of the Democratic debate?
No, I --[more laughter] . . . I reviewed all the footage highlights I tagged as important.
So this is a holistic reaction to those ninety-six hours of footage?
[minor choking sounds] No, just most of it. When Herr D said the 'best and brightest power-mad lying dingbats available,' he might have been slightly harsh. One or two of the less popular Republicans are as classy and professional as the Democrats, and I'm fairly sure that three of the people running for president have above-average intelligence.
Out of 22?
Well, when you put it like THAT . . . [full five-eye roll]
Describe hilarity source?
Yah, sure! Several of these candidates talk about how popular they are and how well they're doing. Uh, count these for me, Shelob.
Point One: Claiming charisma.
Right. Then there's all this claiming that they know what's best for America. Policy decisions, that kind of thing.
Point Two: Claiming advanced utopic design capability.
Yes. Then there's all this nonsense about being tough on things.
Hard to chew?
No! Being tough on violent criminals, being tough on Iran if it cheats on the new deal thingy, being tough on ISIL, being tough on the Taliban, being tough on al-Qaeda, being tough with Russia--
This is nonsense?
Of COURSE it's nonsense! The president doesn't run out on the battlefield and beat the survivors with the Bible he's sworn in with. He tells the armed forces--
Content suggests negotiation as context?
Presidents don't do that by themselves either? You know what they do? Count on the cabinet!
Count the cabinets in the White House or in the Capitol Building?
NO!
The State Department?
NOOO! The cabinet's what the president calls his advisors! The point is, presidents aren't tough on anything except their staff!
Presidential aides?
Yah! And they order the troops into war with a PHONE! Who can't make a phone call?
Compile list of people without index fingers?
NO! [tentacles vibrate, indicative of frustration, long intake through gills] Enumerate.
Point Three: Claiming credit for others' work.
Exactly! So, we should probably figure out a test to winnow down who's acceptable for the job. Something that would actually test their aptitude FOR THE JOB.
Like?
Well, they'd have to learn which advice to take, and from whom, seem desirable, and get people to help them. So . . . okay! Give each presidential candidate a junky car containing two bodyguards, luggage with three changes of clothes, all their meds, a cheap cell phone without internet or gps capability, two ink pens, a pad of Post-it notes, $37.50 in change, a trunk full of randomly selected cheap plastic goods and a half tank of gas. Then disguise them so no one recognizes them or their bodyguards.
This is a cross-country trip?
Not really. They are each given a series of addresses to find, each at least ninety miles apart. At five out of six locations, believable but delusional people or compulsive liars are waiting there to give them their initial directions to the next address. At the other locations are people carefully selected for their accuracy and tendency to be mistrusted. They are ONLY ALLOWED ORAL DIRECTIONS OR DRAWN MAPS. This process is repeated until the car breaks down. The successful candidate will make it three more stops with very little backtracking and directional errors. The perfect candidate will then simultaneously herd eleven cats and three alligators across a small stream and into individual pens that smell like acetone. And have money left over.
The herding exercise--?
--will prove they can work successfully with Congress. This exercise will prove they have charisma, fortitude, resourcefulness, ingenuity, and know which advice to take from whom and when. Blog on this for me Shelob?
I will. [recorded segment ends]
You are speaking of the Democratic debate?
No, I --[more laughter] . . . I reviewed all the footage highlights I tagged as important.
So this is a holistic reaction to those ninety-six hours of footage?
[minor choking sounds] No, just most of it. When Herr D said the 'best and brightest power-mad lying dingbats available,' he might have been slightly harsh. One or two of the less popular Republicans are as classy and professional as the Democrats, and I'm fairly sure that three of the people running for president have above-average intelligence.
Out of 22?
Well, when you put it like THAT . . . [full five-eye roll]
Describe hilarity source?
Yah, sure! Several of these candidates talk about how popular they are and how well they're doing. Uh, count these for me, Shelob.
Point One: Claiming charisma.
Right. Then there's all this claiming that they know what's best for America. Policy decisions, that kind of thing.
Point Two: Claiming advanced utopic design capability.
Yes. Then there's all this nonsense about being tough on things.
Hard to chew?
No! Being tough on violent criminals, being tough on Iran if it cheats on the new deal thingy, being tough on ISIL, being tough on the Taliban, being tough on al-Qaeda, being tough with Russia--
This is nonsense?
Of COURSE it's nonsense! The president doesn't run out on the battlefield and beat the survivors with the Bible he's sworn in with. He tells the armed forces--
Content suggests negotiation as context?
Presidents don't do that by themselves either? You know what they do? Count on the cabinet!
Count the cabinets in the White House or in the Capitol Building?
NO!
The State Department?
NOOO! The cabinet's what the president calls his advisors! The point is, presidents aren't tough on anything except their staff!
Presidential aides?
Yah! And they order the troops into war with a PHONE! Who can't make a phone call?
Compile list of people without index fingers?
NO! [tentacles vibrate, indicative of frustration, long intake through gills] Enumerate.
Point Three: Claiming credit for others' work.
Exactly! So, we should probably figure out a test to winnow down who's acceptable for the job. Something that would actually test their aptitude FOR THE JOB.
Like?
Well, they'd have to learn which advice to take, and from whom, seem desirable, and get people to help them. So . . . okay! Give each presidential candidate a junky car containing two bodyguards, luggage with three changes of clothes, all their meds, a cheap cell phone without internet or gps capability, two ink pens, a pad of Post-it notes, $37.50 in change, a trunk full of randomly selected cheap plastic goods and a half tank of gas. Then disguise them so no one recognizes them or their bodyguards.
This is a cross-country trip?
Not really. They are each given a series of addresses to find, each at least ninety miles apart. At five out of six locations, believable but delusional people or compulsive liars are waiting there to give them their initial directions to the next address. At the other locations are people carefully selected for their accuracy and tendency to be mistrusted. They are ONLY ALLOWED ORAL DIRECTIONS OR DRAWN MAPS. This process is repeated until the car breaks down. The successful candidate will make it three more stops with very little backtracking and directional errors. The perfect candidate will then simultaneously herd eleven cats and three alligators across a small stream and into individual pens that smell like acetone. And have money left over.
The herding exercise--?
--will prove they can work successfully with Congress. This exercise will prove they have charisma, fortitude, resourcefulness, ingenuity, and know which advice to take from whom and when. Blog on this for me Shelob?
I will. [recorded segment ends]
Friday, October 2, 2015
Hannity Vanity
[recorded segment begins]!@#$%^&*(_(*)^&^%$#@! He beat the record!
What record?
Most logical flaws in one pundit's half-hour show! [neuralink upload] Seventeen beats out EVERYONE else! Even Greta doesn't get over eleven very often! [waggles tentacles in a manner suggesting humor] He blew it away!
[rapid examination of show and related news footage] Fourteen, unless you count irrelevant arguments as logical flaws.
[three eyes blink] Of course I do. Even so! I have to say, by the way, full eleven-tentacled salute to that sheriff. Glorifying murder is always a bad idea. Calling him the LCC shooter makes sense. Shelob! How did I put murder in perspective on the blog last? [medbot slowly unfolds, blocked from Hairy's view by largest red tentacle]
[beginning diversionary tactic of involvement] You stated that saving a life can require an entire team of paramedics, doctors, nurses, and support staff, but that killing someone can be accomplished by a mosquito infected with malaria.
Right! Where did Hannity get off hinting at time travel?
[six seconds pass] He did not necessarily mean Obama should have made his statements before this event, he was apparently of the opinion Obama should have waited until a shooting occurred that didn't offend anyone. [observes medbot drawing nearer with prepared sleep syringe] Perhaps a mass shooting in a prison full of pedophiles?
Oh. . . No, I'm sure that would offend someone somehow. So this whole thing is just him caring about getting more people to watch and believe him regardless of how he might mislead them?
That does appear an accurate summation of his current career.
He's the opposite of me! I have fewer than a thousand viewers who get the truth when I actually BLOG. It's a shame my health isn't what it should be--I'd be blogging a lot more. But he's a pro, right? He'd make a lot more money as a salesman of life insurance if people actually believe half of what he says. He's dressed for it, too. Shelob? Put together something on why he acts this way. I hope he finds a profession he can be ACCURATE in. Th--[medbot administers the injection, Hairy goes limp]
[recorded segment ends]
What record?
Most logical flaws in one pundit's half-hour show! [neuralink upload] Seventeen beats out EVERYONE else! Even Greta doesn't get over eleven very often! [waggles tentacles in a manner suggesting humor] He blew it away!
[rapid examination of show and related news footage] Fourteen, unless you count irrelevant arguments as logical flaws.
[three eyes blink] Of course I do. Even so! I have to say, by the way, full eleven-tentacled salute to that sheriff. Glorifying murder is always a bad idea. Calling him the LCC shooter makes sense. Shelob! How did I put murder in perspective on the blog last? [medbot slowly unfolds, blocked from Hairy's view by largest red tentacle]
[beginning diversionary tactic of involvement] You stated that saving a life can require an entire team of paramedics, doctors, nurses, and support staff, but that killing someone can be accomplished by a mosquito infected with malaria.
Right! Where did Hannity get off hinting at time travel?
[six seconds pass] He did not necessarily mean Obama should have made his statements before this event, he was apparently of the opinion Obama should have waited until a shooting occurred that didn't offend anyone. [observes medbot drawing nearer with prepared sleep syringe] Perhaps a mass shooting in a prison full of pedophiles?
Oh. . . No, I'm sure that would offend someone somehow. So this whole thing is just him caring about getting more people to watch and believe him regardless of how he might mislead them?
That does appear an accurate summation of his current career.
He's the opposite of me! I have fewer than a thousand viewers who get the truth when I actually BLOG. It's a shame my health isn't what it should be--I'd be blogging a lot more. But he's a pro, right? He'd make a lot more money as a salesman of life insurance if people actually believe half of what he says. He's dressed for it, too. Shelob? Put together something on why he acts this way. I hope he finds a profession he can be ACCURATE in. Th--[medbot administers the injection, Hairy goes limp]
[recorded segment ends]
Thursday, October 1, 2015
The Global Warming Controversy Solved Permanently In Three Oversimplified Steps
[transmission begins] Unusual lunar activity seems to have galvanized Hairy. He is in what medbot describes as "unusual emotive and compulsive state, with mathematical leanings." He specifically instructed that I present the following subject:
[recorded segment begins] --SHELOB! . . . SHELOB!
Here.
[visibly relaxes all eleven tentacles] Where HAVE you been? The time-jump recalculations haven't even been started yet. You haven't even accessed the new data!
Working on urgent problem.
What urgent problem?
[direct neuralink download begins, and Hairy interrupts] --OW! I can't absorb that much data! What was that, the whole world-wide weather archive?
The first section and random samples for interpolation.
What is this even for?
Current arguments over global warming research and theory validity.
What. You mean that's in question?
Correct.
Well, did you check their work?
Within current margins of error.
So, what's the problem?
Several important people claim that it is theory, and therefore, should not--
Oh, that. Well, they have a point. In theory, adults should act with maturity and wisdom, and look at the political arena. . . . sorry, Shelob. You're going about solving this the wrong way.
The mathematical and geophysical models were--
--the WRONG WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. You can't do it that way, Shelob. The average person is only of average intelligence. The people running for office aren't really much brighter than that either. They won't understand some of the math or the science. You're going to have to solve this a different way.
Suggestions?
[brief pause, ending in full five-eyeroll] Tell everyone to forget the theory and not to worry over whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder or spontaneously turning pink! None of that matters. What matters is that they agree on three basic things--count off for me.
ONE:
Poisoning the air, water, and soil is a bad thing.
TWO:
Less poison is better than more poison.
THREE:
Waiting until scientists tell you you'll all be dead from something soon is STUPID. Everyone needs to work on permanently lessening the amount of poisons made and improving how they are handled a little at a time, in manageable amounts, until it's your offspring's turn to do it for you. That way you'll be ABLE to keep having offspring and surviving as a species.
Solution noted. You wish this idea presented?
Y--[recorded segment ends, transmission complete]
[recorded segment begins] --SHELOB! . . . SHELOB!
Here.
[visibly relaxes all eleven tentacles] Where HAVE you been? The time-jump recalculations haven't even been started yet. You haven't even accessed the new data!
Working on urgent problem.
What urgent problem?
[direct neuralink download begins, and Hairy interrupts] --OW! I can't absorb that much data! What was that, the whole world-wide weather archive?
The first section and random samples for interpolation.
What is this even for?
Current arguments over global warming research and theory validity.
What. You mean that's in question?
Correct.
Well, did you check their work?
Within current margins of error.
So, what's the problem?
Several important people claim that it is theory, and therefore, should not--
Oh, that. Well, they have a point. In theory, adults should act with maturity and wisdom, and look at the political arena. . . . sorry, Shelob. You're going about solving this the wrong way.
The mathematical and geophysical models were--
--the WRONG WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. You can't do it that way, Shelob. The average person is only of average intelligence. The people running for office aren't really much brighter than that either. They won't understand some of the math or the science. You're going to have to solve this a different way.
Suggestions?
[brief pause, ending in full five-eyeroll] Tell everyone to forget the theory and not to worry over whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder or spontaneously turning pink! None of that matters. What matters is that they agree on three basic things--count off for me.
ONE:
Poisoning the air, water, and soil is a bad thing.
TWO:
Less poison is better than more poison.
THREE:
Waiting until scientists tell you you'll all be dead from something soon is STUPID. Everyone needs to work on permanently lessening the amount of poisons made and improving how they are handled a little at a time, in manageable amounts, until it's your offspring's turn to do it for you. That way you'll be ABLE to keep having offspring and surviving as a species.
Solution noted. You wish this idea presented?
Y--[recorded segment ends, transmission complete]
Sunday, September 27, 2015
The Rope-A-Dope Pope
[recorded segment begins]
[batting away medbot's attempts to inject sleep meds] Fold UP, medbot! Go store yourself! I was LAUGHING, you obsolete obstinate oblong operator!
Explain.
Explain laughter? [rotates one green eye toward Shelob's current speaker]
No. Explain source of laughter. That was a serious speech by an authority figure spoken of with surprising reverence by a majority of people, including people who disagree with the majority of what he represents.
The pope. I know that. [slaps medbot into the lair wall] He was addressing congress.
Washington, D.C. 20510 and 20515
What? No! Addressing as in speaking formally to.
This is funny?
I have a context that makes it funny. [knocks medbot into a long spin and cages it with a plankton collector]
Explain context.
Well, there's about sixteen hours of footage here containing pundits talking about the potential controversy of the pope addressing congress. In all that time, I think every potential national political hot button that could be pushed was mentioned. Every SINGLE thing that congress could argue about till they're blue in the face. Every thing that they've argued about with Obama.
Not certain of inclusion of--
Subtext! I get it, even if you don't. The point I'm making is that they were saying the pope would weigh in on topics in a way that would make various congressmen mad. Right?
That does appear to be the general prediction template. This is funny?
Not by itself. What's FUNNY is that at every point he spoke very little about absolute political stances or plans, and pointed out that they need to serve the American people with unity. DON'T ARGUE, JUST SERVE.
[three seconds pass] Did Pope Francis know he was addressing Congress?
[hysterical laughter, accompanied by lashing of tentacles] Good one! Good one! Anyway, good luck on not arguing and just serving! If they don't get their way, they get mad and go HOME! [derisive snicker] He got them GOOD. Point this out to our viewers, Shelob?
Transmission to be sent out shortly. [recording ends]
[batting away medbot's attempts to inject sleep meds] Fold UP, medbot! Go store yourself! I was LAUGHING, you obsolete obstinate oblong operator!
Explain.
Explain laughter? [rotates one green eye toward Shelob's current speaker]
No. Explain source of laughter. That was a serious speech by an authority figure spoken of with surprising reverence by a majority of people, including people who disagree with the majority of what he represents.
The pope. I know that. [slaps medbot into the lair wall] He was addressing congress.
Washington, D.C. 20510 and 20515
What? No! Addressing as in speaking formally to.
This is funny?
I have a context that makes it funny. [knocks medbot into a long spin and cages it with a plankton collector]
Explain context.
Well, there's about sixteen hours of footage here containing pundits talking about the potential controversy of the pope addressing congress. In all that time, I think every potential national political hot button that could be pushed was mentioned. Every SINGLE thing that congress could argue about till they're blue in the face. Every thing that they've argued about with Obama.
Not certain of inclusion of--
Subtext! I get it, even if you don't. The point I'm making is that they were saying the pope would weigh in on topics in a way that would make various congressmen mad. Right?
That does appear to be the general prediction template. This is funny?
Not by itself. What's FUNNY is that at every point he spoke very little about absolute political stances or plans, and pointed out that they need to serve the American people with unity. DON'T ARGUE, JUST SERVE.
[three seconds pass] Did Pope Francis know he was addressing Congress?
[hysterical laughter, accompanied by lashing of tentacles] Good one! Good one! Anyway, good luck on not arguing and just serving! If they don't get their way, they get mad and go HOME! [derisive snicker] He got them GOOD. Point this out to our viewers, Shelob?
Transmission to be sent out shortly. [recording ends]
Friday, September 18, 2015
Herr D Is A Rice Man, Trump Needs A Safe Word, And Hairy Needs To Throw Up And Sleep
[recording begins with Hairy rewatching bits of political debate and swallowing small amounts of plankton]
[shaking with laughter] That was excellent! He saw it coming, though.
Elaborate.
Fiorina turned Trump's words around on him. He was smiling, so obviously he knew she was about to get him. What's neat is that right before that Jeb sounded more presidential than anyone else.
Elaborate.
He pointed out that accommodations for employees are to happen locally. He's thinking about the role he wants, and he's thinking about what he shouldn't be involved in. He's defined his role.
I thought you did not favor Jeb.
Well, I don't think he should be judged exactly like his family or with them. I'm not sure he'd be as good as others, but he IS acting more like he's ready to be a president than everyone on that stage but Fiorina and MAYBE Kasich.
You are taking great joy in Trump losing face.
I don't really want anyone in particular, but he annoys me more than most of the candidates. I have particular sympathy for Herr D, of course, but . . .
Who is he hoping for?
Mostly he's just expressing regret that Condi Rice isn't running. She did seem smart and cool and prepared for anything in all those old clips you recovered.
You did declare that the major fault in human governments is that humans never put the best leaders in charge, but usually the most popular of the worst possible choices.
Yeah, well, I did.
So the presidential hopefuls are each career equivalents of a dominatrix? The point of it for them is the prurient joy of controlling or even misguiding an entire nation?
[spits out a measure of plankton] Errrrgh.
[summoning medbot] Status report?
I'm all right, Shelob; I just imagined Trump in a leather corset. He's ugly enough as a . . . a PERSONA that I really didn't need that image.
Was synopsis inaccurate?
Yuck . . . [cleanses palate with a blast of seawater] Unfortunately, you're a little too right.
Will reconfigure synopsis away from religious right--
What?! No, that's not--
Presidential hopefuls are each career equivalents of a dominatrix-for-hire?
[one eye bugs out a little] Ironically, you may have gotten more accurate. Shelob? Go ahead and blog on this. [greets medbot and accepts sleep med with uncharacteristic enthusiasm]
[recording ends]
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Every Third Pixel Of Internet Porn On Fire, Burned-Up Funny Cat Photos 98% Off While Supplies Last
[recorded segment begins]--So why AREN'T more people reading the blog?
Current data collected lends hypothesis.
What's that?
Blog is unpopular.
That's a bit circular, Shelob. You'd better correct that.
[point oh two oh six seconds pass during deliberation] Merchants claim that search engines are insufficient to find content. Suggest their services for retitling in ways that draw attention.
[hide rumples, approximately translates to mild and surprised annoyance] Not enough processing power in their AI's? Good grief. Our content is MUCH more important than some content. Shelob? Take a random sample and categorize it for me.
[sixteen seconds pass] Presentation manner?
Round to nearest percent and give me a list in order of activity category completion.
Communication, Business: 8%
Communication, Personal Of Apparent Significance: 11%
Communication And Viewing Non-Porn, Personal Of No Apparent Significance: 23%
Porn: 41%
Game playing: 17%
Hey. What happened?! Viewing with significance isn't even on there and porn dropped a good ten percent!
You reclassified viewing of "Those goofy cat pictures and non-pornographic funny junk."
Even so! We should be getting some of the forty percent of what people are doing that isn't really as important. We're doing MUCH more significant stuff than 'wasUP #$%^&*s?' and 'this boogey tasted better the first time.'
Correct.
I'm--just too disgusted to write objectively. Shelob? Put together something for the blog and title it in a way NO ONE should be stupid enough to ignore.
Acknowledged.
[disconnects, starts feeding, porn search, and watching a rerun of 'Sanford And Son' while listening to Chicago local news. Mutters "That looked funnier," not noticing the sound and visual don't match up. Dozes off.]
[notes new health status, stops recording]
Current data collected lends hypothesis.
What's that?
Blog is unpopular.
That's a bit circular, Shelob. You'd better correct that.
[point oh two oh six seconds pass during deliberation] Merchants claim that search engines are insufficient to find content. Suggest their services for retitling in ways that draw attention.
[hide rumples, approximately translates to mild and surprised annoyance] Not enough processing power in their AI's? Good grief. Our content is MUCH more important than some content. Shelob? Take a random sample and categorize it for me.
[sixteen seconds pass] Presentation manner?
Round to nearest percent and give me a list in order of activity category completion.
Communication, Business: 8%
Communication, Personal Of Apparent Significance: 11%
Communication And Viewing Non-Porn, Personal Of No Apparent Significance: 23%
Porn: 41%
Game playing: 17%
Hey. What happened?! Viewing with significance isn't even on there and porn dropped a good ten percent!
You reclassified viewing of "Those goofy cat pictures and non-pornographic funny junk."
Even so! We should be getting some of the forty percent of what people are doing that isn't really as important. We're doing MUCH more significant stuff than 'wasUP #$%^&*s?' and 'this boogey tasted better the first time.'
Correct.
I'm--just too disgusted to write objectively. Shelob? Put together something for the blog and title it in a way NO ONE should be stupid enough to ignore.
Acknowledged.
[disconnects, starts feeding, porn search, and watching a rerun of 'Sanford And Son' while listening to Chicago local news. Mutters "That looked funnier," not noticing the sound and visual don't match up. Dozes off.]
[notes new health status, stops recording]
Monday, August 31, 2015
Hairy Points Out Another Commonly Ignored Third Factor
[medbot retreats, flashing green LEDs in a pattern indicating wellness] --of COURSE I'm all right! I've been carrying on e-convos for three days now! Shelob!
Here.
Turn the blog function on!
On.
Herr D and I have been chatting on and off about this problem. He gave me permission to quote a bit of his words:
--pletely ignored. I know that the math is harder with three influences, but ignoring a third factor will always throw off the results measured for the other two.
That's even more simplified than I would have put it. Shelob HAS cautioned me to avoid putting any math on here, stating that our audience is small enough without me depleting them. What's great is that he typed generically enough to cover more than just today's topic.
--others. Everyone I knew in Roanoke who watched the news would have been horrified at me saying that the individual won out. But he did. He accomplished exactly what he wanted to accomplish. The environment, postmodern lone wolf terrorist acts being more commonplace, would suggest that his actions, despite being reprehensible, would be relatively unnoticeable compared to other multiple homicides. But he made his actions noticed. Most people say that environment & heredity both work against suicide, and he succeeded at that, too. All because of his individually twisted way of dealing with things. When people so twisted that they must have mental illness succeed in making a plan, carrying it out, and foiling any resistance, you know that individuality is a force to be reckoned with. Normally the most danger from mentally ill people is their unpredictability and tendency to fail.
That's a very specific summation, but it DOES cover the real problem I'm addressing. Researchers, scientists, etc. frequently fall into the binary thinking trap and argue--
Nature Vs. Nurture
Heredity vs Environment
DNA vs GAIA
Ridiculous, isn't it? A guy can have the genetic dice loaded (cardiovascular health issues on both sides of the family for eight generations) and have the family life dice loaded (too poor to run away from his foster parents who feed him nothing but cheeseburgers and won't pay sports fees for him, just give him an old game boy.) That sounds bad, but does he take up free tai chi at the library and swap some of his lunches for salads with the school kids or does he jump off a building in despair?
Herr D has described some of the people he's known. One of them was a guy with a strong family history of diabetes. He worked out, maintained his sugar-insulin balance with diet despite a stressful job for more than two decades. Another one was a guy who misunderstood the differences in law from one state to the other and got his car impounded after driving with a rejection sticker for about six months. The whole time, he could have afforded to fix the car but thought he couldn't. Then he couldn't afford the impound fee. Not enough research.
I want to see this improve. I want to see:
DNA vs Desert Island vs Determination
Heredity vs Environment vs Personality
Nature vs Nurture vs Nevermore or Nation's Best
This IS the era of the individual, when there are more 'successfully multiple homicidal' lone wolf attacks per year than active terrorist organizations. Obviously popular science has ignored mathematical measure of individual possibility to its own detriment. Herr D's been rather sour on that recently--he says he'd have a much better job if his actual potential had been measured somehow. I don't know that I agree with that. The businesses I've run across seem to prefer less valuable employees? I realize they can be paid less, but it looks like a way to guarantee future business failures.
Who'd care to share an important real-life example or a cool-sounding three-way fight name?
Friday, August 21, 2015
Trump, Jeb, And Hillary Missed Point--Anchor Chains Can Be Cut
Against statistical models of Hairy's recuperative tendencies, he had a thought several ticks ago that sounded cogent and suitable to blog upon. Please inform here whether this judgement is correct:
[Begin interrupted recording--]--urately! What bugs me even more is this business about the term 'anchor babies.'
You find the term offensive?
No! I find it confusing that no one is talking about it correctly!
How do you mean?
Both Trump AND Jeb Bush came so close, and still missed completely. Trump just blurted out "I'm gonna use it [the term anchor babies.] Jeb Bush prefaced it "as they're described" to try to distance himself from it. Both of them missed the real issue completely when they asked for another term. Then Hillary missed the point completely when she said to just call them 'babies.'
The point/issue being what?
The point is that we already have legislation in place to handle the situation. The issue is that the phrase isn't what's offensive, it's the behavior. Using a child's birth in such a manner is an offensive act, much as rape is offensive. The term rapist IS in common use. No one objects to calling a rapist a rapist unless the 'suspect' is only an ALLEGED rapist. No one objects to calling a murder victim a murder victim--unless they believe it was suicide. If a baby is planned to anchor a family or is used that way, then that is what they are. Offensive or not, that's the fact, Jack.
Trump WAS wrong to imply that babies born in this country don't deserve Social Security, government protection, et cetera. There is a mechanism in place that ensures those benefits that isn't even being used.
If proved in court that a baby was born in America for an illegal purpose, or a purpose that defies this country's ethics, such as being birthed for the purposes of child rape, this government has something called social services. Social services is supposed to take the child away from its family that is doing it wrong or is doing wrong by virtue of it.
Hey, there ARE infertile, deserving couples in this country who would LOVE to adopt a newborn and give it a good life. Medical histories for the baby could be collected from the parents during deportation or by mail afterwards. International mail DOES exist. Anyone not deported CAN come and visit or come and donate kidneys.
The thing to do is stop rewarding bad behavior. Allow any law-abiding families of good reputation the continued right to pay their own way to visit this country and their relatives. Furth--[medbot injects another round of medicine] --erm--[snore]
Recorded segment ends. [end transmission]
[Begin interrupted recording--]--urately! What bugs me even more is this business about the term 'anchor babies.'
You find the term offensive?
No! I find it confusing that no one is talking about it correctly!
How do you mean?
Both Trump AND Jeb Bush came so close, and still missed completely. Trump just blurted out "I'm gonna use it [the term anchor babies.] Jeb Bush prefaced it "as they're described" to try to distance himself from it. Both of them missed the real issue completely when they asked for another term. Then Hillary missed the point completely when she said to just call them 'babies.'
The point/issue being what?
The point is that we already have legislation in place to handle the situation. The issue is that the phrase isn't what's offensive, it's the behavior. Using a child's birth in such a manner is an offensive act, much as rape is offensive. The term rapist IS in common use. No one objects to calling a rapist a rapist unless the 'suspect' is only an ALLEGED rapist. No one objects to calling a murder victim a murder victim--unless they believe it was suicide. If a baby is planned to anchor a family or is used that way, then that is what they are. Offensive or not, that's the fact, Jack.
Trump WAS wrong to imply that babies born in this country don't deserve Social Security, government protection, et cetera. There is a mechanism in place that ensures those benefits that isn't even being used.
If proved in court that a baby was born in America for an illegal purpose, or a purpose that defies this country's ethics, such as being birthed for the purposes of child rape, this government has something called social services. Social services is supposed to take the child away from its family that is doing it wrong or is doing wrong by virtue of it.
Hey, there ARE infertile, deserving couples in this country who would LOVE to adopt a newborn and give it a good life. Medical histories for the baby could be collected from the parents during deportation or by mail afterwards. International mail DOES exist. Anyone not deported CAN come and visit or come and donate kidneys.
The thing to do is stop rewarding bad behavior. Allow any law-abiding families of good reputation the continued right to pay their own way to visit this country and their relatives. Furth--[medbot injects another round of medicine] --erm--[snore]
Recorded segment ends. [end transmission]
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Shock Cycle Update
The following recorded segment is of a cycle that occurred from 9:53 AM EST till 1:27 PM:
Recording begins:
. . . so, how long till launch?
Complete launch failure. One more half revolution till next worthwhile attempt.
[all five eyes dilate] what? [tentacles go limp]
Calling medbot. Hairy has fainted. [medbot arrives, blows bubbles at Hairy's gills]
[startles] aah!
. . . so, how long till launch?
Complete launch failure. One more half revolution till next worthwhile attempt.
[all five eyes dilate] what? [tentacles go limp]
Calling medbot. Hairy has fainted. [medbot arrives, blows bubbles at Hairy's gills]
[startles] aah!
. . . so, how long till launch?
Complete launch failure. One more half revolution till next worthwhile attempt.
[all five eyes dilate] what? [tentacles go limp]
Calling medbot. Hairy has fainted. [medbot arrives, blows bubbles at Hairy's gills]
[startles] aah!
Recording segment ends.
Attempts will be made to revive him again shortly.
Recording begins:
. . . so, how long till launch?
Complete launch failure. One more half revolution till next worthwhile attempt.
[all five eyes dilate] what? [tentacles go limp]
Calling medbot. Hairy has fainted. [medbot arrives, blows bubbles at Hairy's gills]
[startles] aah!
. . . so, how long till launch?
Complete launch failure. One more half revolution till next worthwhile attempt.
[all five eyes dilate] what? [tentacles go limp]
Calling medbot. Hairy has fainted. [medbot arrives, blows bubbles at Hairy's gills]
[startles] aah!
. . . so, how long till launch?
Complete launch failure. One more half revolution till next worthwhile attempt.
[all five eyes dilate] what? [tentacles go limp]
Calling medbot. Hairy has fainted. [medbot arrives, blows bubbles at Hairy's gills]
[startles] aah!
Recording segment ends.
Attempts will be made to revive him again shortly.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Out To Launch, Despite Those Explosive Jellies
[recorded segment begins]
--when I resurface or emigrate.
Herr D is going on retreat. He will not be available for that.
[one pupil dilates] What?
He will not be available.
Wh-- What's a retreat?
He described being away from computers.
People really do that?
Yes. He also doesn't own a smartphone.
Your sarcasm detection software doesn't seem to be working.
You've programmed me to read human body language.
Yes, but-- OH! Right. [tentacular shrug] My dialog conversion software reads MY body language. Oh, well. I can't get him to do a graphic then. Shelob? Do a search. [neuralink upload] See if there are better words to describe what I found.
[sixteen seconds pass] Yes. Your knowledge of modern taxonomy is incomplete. This discovery may have already been made. Uncertain of parameters.
Yeah? Give it to me, Shelob! [high-speed neuralink download, underwater equivalent of a stagger]
Oooh. Um? Compose. Give 'em the report. I'm gonna go cover something with ink. [swims out of lair]
Report: Hairy has discovered some examples of what appear to be Loricifera 'Hydrogen Extremophiles' deep in the Atlantic. These extremophiles live on hydrogen rather than oxygen. Data collected by Hairy suggests that the ones he found are members of one of the three species of multicellular organisms vaguely described online. Various sizes and shapes of jellyfish are usually indiscernible to the layman. These beings were discovered in a surprisingly large nest of deep-living electric eels. These eels are congregating in unusually large numbers for reasons undetermined and have been for a very long time. The unusual amounts of electrolysis occurring in and around the nest have become a long-standing source of nourishment, producing enough hydrogen for a small extremophile close-ranging colony.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSION: The hydrogen molecules Hairy will discover in the intake system of the launch apparatus could be the cause of all repeated failed launches for Hairy's return home. Strobing backward in time could reasonably have caused collection from the Loricifera extremophile colony. Without knowledge of these beings living in the intake valve, Hairy could not possibly have calibrated the system correctly. This event, if true, constitutes an impenetrable continuum cycle in which events bring around a circular pattern resistant to change. This launch, from all preliminary reports, appears, appeared, shall appear, and shall have appeared to be consistent with the other failed launches. Additionally, the electric eels may have chosen to reside here because of the unusual magnetic flux issues caused by Hairy's biannual launch attempts. Though this appears paradoxical, it is actually a simple continual causal cycle common to time travel.
[pause till Hairy's return]
[Hairy swims back into lair]
Conclusion reached concerning--
[Tentacular wave] Stop. Just go do some web browsing. I'm going to mentally prepare for launch. Wait. You mentioned something earlier about self-sabotage?
Yes.
Addictive personalities, destructive habits, communication failures, personality problems, and other such things are overdue for addressing on the blog. Why don't you submit something about cyclical failure causes as a blog entry? You can think of something for that, right?
Yes. [recorded segment ends]
--when I resurface or emigrate.
Herr D is going on retreat. He will not be available for that.
[one pupil dilates] What?
He will not be available.
Wh-- What's a retreat?
He described being away from computers.
People really do that?
Yes. He also doesn't own a smartphone.
Your sarcasm detection software doesn't seem to be working.
You've programmed me to read human body language.
Yes, but-- OH! Right. [tentacular shrug] My dialog conversion software reads MY body language. Oh, well. I can't get him to do a graphic then. Shelob? Do a search. [neuralink upload] See if there are better words to describe what I found.
[sixteen seconds pass] Yes. Your knowledge of modern taxonomy is incomplete. This discovery may have already been made. Uncertain of parameters.
Yeah? Give it to me, Shelob! [high-speed neuralink download, underwater equivalent of a stagger]
Oooh. Um? Compose. Give 'em the report. I'm gonna go cover something with ink. [swims out of lair]
Report: Hairy has discovered some examples of what appear to be Loricifera 'Hydrogen Extremophiles' deep in the Atlantic. These extremophiles live on hydrogen rather than oxygen. Data collected by Hairy suggests that the ones he found are members of one of the three species of multicellular organisms vaguely described online. Various sizes and shapes of jellyfish are usually indiscernible to the layman. These beings were discovered in a surprisingly large nest of deep-living electric eels. These eels are congregating in unusually large numbers for reasons undetermined and have been for a very long time. The unusual amounts of electrolysis occurring in and around the nest have become a long-standing source of nourishment, producing enough hydrogen for a small extremophile close-ranging colony.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSION: The hydrogen molecules Hairy will discover in the intake system of the launch apparatus could be the cause of all repeated failed launches for Hairy's return home. Strobing backward in time could reasonably have caused collection from the Loricifera extremophile colony. Without knowledge of these beings living in the intake valve, Hairy could not possibly have calibrated the system correctly. This event, if true, constitutes an impenetrable continuum cycle in which events bring around a circular pattern resistant to change. This launch, from all preliminary reports, appears, appeared, shall appear, and shall have appeared to be consistent with the other failed launches. Additionally, the electric eels may have chosen to reside here because of the unusual magnetic flux issues caused by Hairy's biannual launch attempts. Though this appears paradoxical, it is actually a simple continual causal cycle common to time travel.
[pause till Hairy's return]
[Hairy swims back into lair]
Conclusion reached concerning--
[Tentacular wave] Stop. Just go do some web browsing. I'm going to mentally prepare for launch. Wait. You mentioned something earlier about self-sabotage?
Yes.
Addictive personalities, destructive habits, communication failures, personality problems, and other such things are overdue for addressing on the blog. Why don't you submit something about cyclical failure causes as a blog entry? You can think of something for that, right?
Yes. [recorded segment ends]
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Obama Vs Congress As Depicted By Herr D And Shelob
 | |
| Herr D made this cartoon on heromachine.com. |
As instructed, blog will continue in Hairy's absence. The U.S. government is surprising in it's complexity and capacity for repetition. Obama mentioned that he expects certain identical arguments to be used in identical contexts as a repeated theme. Perhaps his success is partly due to his memory of what happened before. This would eliminate his opposition's element of surprise.
Does anyone agree with that hypothesis?
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Good Grief, Good Day, And Possibly Good-Bye--If The Energy Fields Line Up Without Paradox
[transmission begins] Memo to all seventeen of Hairy's followers and the other random readers worldwide: With the Perseids beginning and Hairy erratically bouncing back and forth between hypothermic invigoration and hibernation, he is largely incapable of human language and is temporarily forbidden from neuralink access. Strobing in and out of time has already begun. Displacement is being kept to a minimum by keeping him lair-bound.
Should his planning enable his emigration, there will be a notification entry here.
Should he return, his health on restoration will allow him to resume blogging before the Perseids end.
Should there be an unplanned alternative, my instructions are set.
medbot may enable occasional bulletins in the interim.
Any unusual magnetic activity will be brief. Please provide extra protein to anyone whose travel over the metropolitan area coast allows them to arrive at their destination before their departure.
[transmission ends]
Should his planning enable his emigration, there will be a notification entry here.
Should he return, his health on restoration will allow him to resume blogging before the Perseids end.
Should there be an unplanned alternative, my instructions are set.
medbot may enable occasional bulletins in the interim.
Any unusual magnetic activity will be brief. Please provide extra protein to anyone whose travel over the metropolitan area coast allows them to arrive at their destination before their departure.
[transmission ends]
Sunday, July 12, 2015
The Trump Card Played On The GOP?
[recording begins at interruption following] -ide of Trump's remarks being right or wrong to have made?
You mean the ones about Mexico?
Yes.
[frustrated tentacular gesture-tips only] Shelob, I programmed you with the capability to supersede binary thinking. I've obviously failed. Trump's remarks were exaggerated to the point of foolishness, AND everyone has overreacted. Both sides were wrong. BOTH of them, Shelob. BOTH SIDES WERE WRONG AGAIN.
How did both sides manage to be wrong?
Easily! [gill snort] Both sides are USUALLY wrong in MOST arguments. That's why most arguments aren't really settled. BECAUSE both sides are wrong.
Please explain.
Obviously some people who remain illegal aliens are bad people.
Law enforcement records bear out that point. But yet you say Trump was wrong as well.
Well, he was! He made it sound like the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are horrible people--if that were true, it would be easy to prove, and no one would mind deporting all of them. You've forgotten about camouflage.
The principle of hiding within a larger body or group.
Yes! The only stats we dug up suggest that somewhere between one in twelve and one in six commit multiple felonies. That leaves a clear majority of good people. Of course, Mexico is only doing the same thing the U.S. does--
What's that?
Allowing some of their cagier criminals to cross the border among others. People do that in both directions, right?
[sixteen seconds pass] It appears there is a long tradition of criminals fleeing a government by leaving its jurisdiction.
Exactly! I'm more concerned about the possibility that Trump might try to wreck the GOP so that Hillary would be a shoo-in.
Why would he do that?
Because he's a businessman! He's in there with all those politicians, wrecking the GOP so there'll be a landslide election. That'll bolster the economy better than anything. Trump wins by losing everything to Hillary for the GOP. He's using camouflage better than I ever could!
You are correct. You make a rather unbelievable human.
HEY! Shelob, now--[recording ends]
You mean the ones about Mexico?
Yes.
[frustrated tentacular gesture-tips only] Shelob, I programmed you with the capability to supersede binary thinking. I've obviously failed. Trump's remarks were exaggerated to the point of foolishness, AND everyone has overreacted. Both sides were wrong. BOTH of them, Shelob. BOTH SIDES WERE WRONG AGAIN.
How did both sides manage to be wrong?
Easily! [gill snort] Both sides are USUALLY wrong in MOST arguments. That's why most arguments aren't really settled. BECAUSE both sides are wrong.
Please explain.
Obviously some people who remain illegal aliens are bad people.
Law enforcement records bear out that point. But yet you say Trump was wrong as well.
Well, he was! He made it sound like the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are horrible people--if that were true, it would be easy to prove, and no one would mind deporting all of them. You've forgotten about camouflage.
The principle of hiding within a larger body or group.
Yes! The only stats we dug up suggest that somewhere between one in twelve and one in six commit multiple felonies. That leaves a clear majority of good people. Of course, Mexico is only doing the same thing the U.S. does--
What's that?
Allowing some of their cagier criminals to cross the border among others. People do that in both directions, right?
[sixteen seconds pass] It appears there is a long tradition of criminals fleeing a government by leaving its jurisdiction.
Exactly! I'm more concerned about the possibility that Trump might try to wreck the GOP so that Hillary would be a shoo-in.
Why would he do that?
Because he's a businessman! He's in there with all those politicians, wrecking the GOP so there'll be a landslide election. That'll bolster the economy better than anything. Trump wins by losing everything to Hillary for the GOP. He's using camouflage better than I ever could!
You are correct. You make a rather unbelievable human.
HEY! Shelob, now--[recording ends]
Friday, July 3, 2015
The Causal Links Between Emotions, Sharks, and Thunderstorms
--You wish to declaim any possible higher intellect, telepathy, or empathy from sea creatures to humans to further convince any suspicious MiBs of the impossibility of you being extraterrestrial.
Uh, yes?
[neuralink burst containing suggested topics]Oh! Those two are good ones. Ready to record?
Recording.
So—[gill sound translatable to ‘ahem’] –I’d like to address
the topic of shark attacks in the Carolinas. Contrary to any possible
conspiracy theory of government experiment or rogue geneticist, this cluster of
activity does NOT indicate that sharks are sensing the anger felt collectively
in the region over certain political events that have coincided. That would be
a clear confusion of causality.
With?
Sorry. A clear confusion between cause and effect.
You are claiming that the sharks being drawn to the area
caused the political events or the emotions?
What?! [gill spasm: laughter] NO. Yeesh. That’s funny,
though. No. The emotions helped cause the sharks to be drawn to the area, all
right—
You said that relationship was backward.
No, I didn’t. In this case, there was an effect of the
emotions that was also a cause of the sharks drawn to the area.
Explain.
Okay. As an example . . . Think of offshore fishing. Some
people use, for example, chum.
They use friends for bait.
NOOOOO! They chop up raw fish and dump it as bait. It’s
called chumming the waters.
This would always call sharks.
--Except the fisherman felt differently recently, didn’t
they? They chopped the chum with different levels of vigor, completion, and
precision. They used different amounts. Their chum drops were less consistent
between fishermen, because the fishermen felt more strongly different from each
other. So the sharks were drawn differently. Of course this is only one example--there might be--
So, a causal chain, rather than a single effect.
Yes! And the lightning, too.
The emotions caused the lightning storms?
No, that’s just a straight reversal. Extreme behavior in
the more suggestible parts of humanity clusters around weather events. Like the fact that more murders happen
at 92 degrees Fahrenheit. In this case, the weather imbalances finally brought
the storms. Shelob? When you blog this, put it through that subroutine for
clever titling—this idea is fairly important.
Processing. [recording ends]
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Red Flag?
 | ||
| Herr D made a rough draft for me on request. He calls this heromachine.com creation "New Mississippi Flag." and suggests that moving forward always requires the appearance of destroying links to the past. He's right about the requirement. How much destruction is actual always depends upon levels of unity, clarity, sanity, grace, and general intellect. -Hairy Deewon |
[selected beginning of recorded dialog] No, Shelob, I don't understand this business about flags. Countries still use those?
Yes.
I thought that was an article about the barbaric side of human history.
Is there another part of human history?
Hey. Not nice. We're supposed to be encouraging.
The use of flags is still common. Symbols seem necessary to motivate humans to do moral and ethical things. The inexplicable part is what those symbols stand for.
Like what?
Your interview with those three people outside the mosque in New York contained their notion that the symbols for Islam call to mind the murder of Muhammed. Your interview with the protesters outside the abortion clinic indicate that the symbol for Christianity is the structure that Jesus was tortured and killed upon.
Oh, the cross thing; I knew that. Right. Go on.
Yet the Nazi swastika has not been adopted as an inspiration to followers of the Jewish faith. The Confederate flag has not been adopted as a reminder of why civil war should be avoided or why slavery should be considered wrong or why state's rights shouldn't supersede federal authority.
Ummmmm . . . [helpless tentacular gesture]
For that matter, the ambiguity of the symbol for piracy and poison is bound to lead to misunderstanding.
What?! [gill fluttering, translatable to confusion] What kind of situation could that possibly be a problem--
[redacted interruption, during which Shelob explains the danger] -ated by the trend of human history.
--rrrmmmm, no . . . I don't think that's very likely. You do make a good point though about the arbitrary nature of symbols. I'm ready to declare that displaying a symbol with or without context might be necessary for the education of younglings and that it plays an important part of any history lesson. In America, it also becomes important for freedom of expression. All this business about whether a flag should be flown is obviously important to some.
But you don't wish to say it is right or wrong.
Well, no. I DO think that everyone should feel grateful that they can direct their emotions so accurately that something so arbitrary as a flag could be used to rescue people. But doesn't that mean people are gullible enough to shoot their best friend in the dark if some criminal pastes a glow-in-the-dark swastika on them? Worse, in the case of certain ocular or neural trauma, wouldn't certain patients suddenly have the tendency to think, say, that good and bad symbols are reversed?
You are referring to vulnerability to manipulation.
Well, yes. If a symbol can be used against people . . . Shelob, you'd better blog on this.
Underway. [transmission ends]
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Marriage Law By Hairy, With All The Vexing Silence
[Interruption point determined, recording begins]
-the metaphorical dust cleared? Is the same-sex marriage issue decided?
No. All evidence suggests much more argument to come.
Have we successfully predicted an end to arguments like this?
You have, in theory, been correct on multiple occasions.
In theory?
Your answer of 'Never' has shown to be a correct supposition so far.
[violent gill expulsion] Yeah, okay. [ambivalent tentacular gesticulation] So, what progress has been made?
Multiple state-level jurisdictions have ruled upon it and added more argument. Do you intend to pick a side?
Uh, well, not to put too fine a point on it, Shelob, but both male AND female humans are rather unattractive. The females are sometimes neat, especially when they have longer, more flexible arms--
Legs. You are supposed to say legs. Limbs will suffice.
Legs! Right. Thank you for keeping me in practice . . . but I wouldn't be allowed to marry anyway, so--
[auto-rephrasal procedure activated as misunderstanding detected] Do you intend to blog upon this issue?
--oh . . . [very long pause, during neuralink access to recent newsfeeds, blogs, etc.] I'm not even sure why this is an issue at all.
You think the answer is obvious?
No, I mean, I don't know why it's an issue. If I had an acceptable mate, I wouldn't want the government involved at all. Why do 'straight' people want the government having any say over their marriages? Isn't there a slogan somewhere about 'Keep The Government Out Of My Mating?' I don't even understand why heterosexuals are called 'straight.' They're just as twisted as bisexuals, homosexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and the others I can't think of right now. Worse, they're just as crooked! Furth-
That slogan is an approximation of a 'pro-choice' slogan.
[one pupil dilates] -what?! Oh . . . well, okay. But seriously? Why should the government have any say over who, how, whether, or even why people should marry? I mean, marriage is a religious issue for many people--that means that the government shouldn't be involved under separation of church and state. Records probably DO need to be collected and kept, but why should there be any other governmental involvement?
Age limits, voluntary nature, tax purposes, and licensing.
[full five-eye roll] Those are all covered by other laws! Redundancy isn't that valuable! Age limits are covered by statutory rape laws, voluntary nature is covered under rape, kidnapping, and enslavement laws, licensing can be handled by event licensing for the ceremonies--and, really, why should the government license marriage? As for tax purposes, what difference should it make? Children are already tax deductions, right? Homemakers can already be listed as dependents on the tax form for a 'head of household,' right?
[sixteen seconds pass] Your legal interpretations do seem correct. Your suggestion is to eliminate redundancy and make government smaller?
Law is one of those things where less is more, Shelob. Do you want to blog on this for me since medbot hasn't released me yet?
Yes. [recording ends]
-the metaphorical dust cleared? Is the same-sex marriage issue decided?
No. All evidence suggests much more argument to come.
Have we successfully predicted an end to arguments like this?
You have, in theory, been correct on multiple occasions.
In theory?
Your answer of 'Never' has shown to be a correct supposition so far.
[violent gill expulsion] Yeah, okay. [ambivalent tentacular gesticulation] So, what progress has been made?
Multiple state-level jurisdictions have ruled upon it and added more argument. Do you intend to pick a side?
Uh, well, not to put too fine a point on it, Shelob, but both male AND female humans are rather unattractive. The females are sometimes neat, especially when they have longer, more flexible arms--
Legs. You are supposed to say legs. Limbs will suffice.
Legs! Right. Thank you for keeping me in practice . . . but I wouldn't be allowed to marry anyway, so--
[auto-rephrasal procedure activated as misunderstanding detected] Do you intend to blog upon this issue?
--oh . . . [very long pause, during neuralink access to recent newsfeeds, blogs, etc.] I'm not even sure why this is an issue at all.
You think the answer is obvious?
No, I mean, I don't know why it's an issue. If I had an acceptable mate, I wouldn't want the government involved at all. Why do 'straight' people want the government having any say over their marriages? Isn't there a slogan somewhere about 'Keep The Government Out Of My Mating?' I don't even understand why heterosexuals are called 'straight.' They're just as twisted as bisexuals, homosexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and the others I can't think of right now. Worse, they're just as crooked! Furth-
That slogan is an approximation of a 'pro-choice' slogan.
[one pupil dilates] -what?! Oh . . . well, okay. But seriously? Why should the government have any say over who, how, whether, or even why people should marry? I mean, marriage is a religious issue for many people--that means that the government shouldn't be involved under separation of church and state. Records probably DO need to be collected and kept, but why should there be any other governmental involvement?
Age limits, voluntary nature, tax purposes, and licensing.
[full five-eye roll] Those are all covered by other laws! Redundancy isn't that valuable! Age limits are covered by statutory rape laws, voluntary nature is covered under rape, kidnapping, and enslavement laws, licensing can be handled by event licensing for the ceremonies--and, really, why should the government license marriage? As for tax purposes, what difference should it make? Children are already tax deductions, right? Homemakers can already be listed as dependents on the tax form for a 'head of household,' right?
[sixteen seconds pass] Your legal interpretations do seem correct. Your suggestion is to eliminate redundancy and make government smaller?
Law is one of those things where less is more, Shelob. Do you want to blog on this for me since medbot hasn't released me yet?
Yes. [recording ends]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)