|
Comments, Love Letters, and Death Threats
Comment Archive 18
The posts below were made from August 3, 2004 to October 11, 2004.
You can also visit our previous comment archive.
To make a post, please visit the main comment page.
Name: Jade
E-mail: Sin_In_A_Box@hotmail.com
Subject: Regarding Presidental Debate
Dear JR,
I'm quite glad I'm not old enough to vote in this election for at the
moment, I'm still trying to decide which canidate is the lesser evil. I
shudder to think of the turmoil of zealous voters trying to take the
appropriate stance. Go with the pro-war (and hopefully effective plan)
pro-life canidate or the peaceful but decidely confused?
And there you go with the SuperSize Me jokes again, in your review of
Farenheight 9/11. Shame on you for debasing good greasy humor.
Editor's Note: I get to make those Super Size Me jokes at least up until the day when I actually see it. (JR)
October 11, 2004 at 15:35:44
Name: Brian Bedient
E-mail: xero163@hotmail.com
Subject: Fahrenheit 9/11 Review
My liberal friends dragged me to Fahrenheit 9/11 a couple of
months ago, and I went along - I'm not a leftist by any means myself,
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which is what happens when you fall off the
right side of the political spectrum, but anyway, I'm always up for
having a laugh at the President's expense. Still, I'm perfectly willing to
have a chuckle at Moore's expense as well, so I was watching for any of
these inaccuracies conservatives have been huffing and puffing about,
so I could point them out to the Kerry voters in the seats next to me.
I quickly forgot about watching for inaccuracies and started watching
for any evidence of Moore having a position on solving the terrorist
problem, or *anything*, himself, rather than criticisms of others'
positions. I never heard anything to indicate that he did. The entire thing
was negative, and aimed straight at Republicans.
This leads me to some conclusions about the way the American political
system perpetuates itself, despite many very public and repeated
failures.
There's no doubt the government failed massively on 9/11, in its
self-avowed central purpose: protecting us. It's debatable if they're
entirely responsible for causing the terrorists to organize against us, but I
think there's some truth there. However, 9/11 brought Americans
together BEHIND the government, and led us into two wars halfway across the
planet. There doesn't seem to be any public debate on whether the
government is really acting in our interests here - the debate has all been
Democrats versus Republicans.
When the government, as a system, fails, Republicans blame Democrats
and vice versa, and few look at the real problem. Moore could have had a
scathing indictment of the entire political system in F911, but instead
he focused it all on one group of government officials, and one
official in particular, and paid no attention to the officials of his group
that were complicit in causing the problems his film attacks.
A few inaccuracies and inconsistencies here and there are not what
ended up bothering me about F911; the focus of the film was on the wrong
subject. Bush is just the biggest cog in a great machine; when that
machine mangles its operator over and over again, it makes no sense to
merely focus on the biggest cog's flaws, and perhaps suggest that it should
be replaced with one equally flawed but in different ways, and ignore
the design of the machine itself.
Editor's Note: It sure took a lot of words to criticize Moore for not having a specific position. And I'm still not sure I know what yours is. (JR)
October 10, 2004 at 23:10:47
Name: Park Jennings
E-mail: jpj@uchicago.edu
Subject: Your Xmas theme
There's one little problem with your X-mas story, in case no
one else has told you. "X" is used as a symbol for Christ. It is part
of a symbol used by christians - PX (greek Chi Ro) which stands for Son
of God or some such; I don't know what the precise meaning is. The
point is, "X-mas" is derived from the Greek symbols for christ. So in
fact, X-mas DOES mean "Christmas" - its just an abbreviation. Hate to
burst your bubble, man. But maybe we could call it "Z-mas" or some such.
But that brings up the problem of the "mas" which is, of course, a
shortening of "mass" as in catholic service. So, the only option as I can
see it is to just come up with a new name for the
'holiday-that-comes-at-the-end-of-december.' How about Celebration of Life? But I digress.
Editor's Note: Yes, someone has pointed that out. But I'm still endorsing Xmas, because (a) most religious people dislike it and (b) I never knock a good variable. (JR)
October 10, 2004 at 18:16:17
Name: Insaf
Subject: despotism worse than terrorism?
So you think Iraq is better off after being invaded by the
U.S.? How many people have been killed under Saddam's regime in the last
10 years? How many people have been blown to bits by rocket-propelled
grenades, or car bombs, or assault rifle fire in the past year? Don't
tell people they're better off dead, you have no idea what it's like to
to gun fire and mortar blasts every week.
Editor's Note: And I suppose we should judge the American Revolution based on the pain it caused to the Americans who fought it? (JR)
October 9, 2004 at 17:58:03
Name: darrell zimmerman
E-mail: saxmaniac02@hotmail.com
Subject: olympic sponsors
I live in Vancouver, BC-that's Canada, not the lame-ass
suburb of Portland Ore. they have in WA. Which brings me to the corportate
sponsorship we all know and love-as it pertains to the 2010 winter
games being held here. It seems that 'Seattle's Best' is the 'official'
coffee of OUR games. that's bullshit. So I'm starting a new coffee outlet
called 'Vancouver's Worst'... and even though we are the worst fucking
coffee north of the 49th parallel, we're still better than Seattle's
Best so blow me!!!! thanks for your support, would you like one or two
lumps?
Editor's Note: Hey, you're lucky that we even let you guys drink our coffee. (JR)
October 8, 2004 at 17:55:35
Name: darrell zimmerman
E-mail: saxmaniac02@hotmail.com
Subject: shooting events
What's with shooting events in the olympics and why don't
they have dudes from south Compton involved. and what's with bi-athlon,
like shooting while x-country skiing, why not shooting while luging or
snowboarding, why not give hockey players a 357 magnum, would make it
more interesting don't you think? Just wondering. Did they have shooting
in the original games, I don't think so. And what's with sailing, and
equestrian. Like these are athletes???
Editor's Note: There's something funny in the idea of snowboarding with guns. Unfortunately, it alluded you. (JR)
October 8, 2004 at 17:42:31
Name: Sioan
Subject: Bush Vs Kerry
I applaud your efforts to save Bush, but he lost the debate.
It's not worth arguing over. Move on to battles you can win.
Editor's Note: Would your brain ache to mention even one reason why you disagree with me? (JR)
October 7, 2004 at 22:16:54
Name: Drew
Subject: Iraq was better off under Saddam
Iraq was better off under Saddam. Yes he was a brutal
dictator but no worse than 30 or 40 others around the world. Also Iraq was
one of the more progressive middle-eastern countries when it came to
women's rights, medicine and education. Saddam's strongarm tactics was
the only thing keeping the 3 major ethnic groups in Iraq from civil war.
If we ever leave there will be civil war in Iraq which will certainly
draw in (at the very least) Turkey(against the Kurds) and Iran. Had we
not invaded Iraq Saddam would still have been effectively contained
like Libya which is no longer a threat.
If we really want to reduce terrorist acts against americans then we
need to stop supporting Israel in their genocide of the Palestinians and
remove our troops from forign countries including Saudi Arabia,
Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Colombia. We should do these things not to
placate the terrorists but because they are the right thing to do. We
are not the world police.
Editor's Note: You've been listening to Republicans too much. We didn't invade Iraq to make life better for its people. (Though in the long run, it probably will be.) We invaded it to remove the threat of Iraq providing support to terrorists and, presumably, to throw our weight around the region without giving Islamic militants an excuse to bring the moderates onto their side. By the way, it actually gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling every time I hear about an Israeli air strike. (JR)
October 7, 2004 at 12:34:58
Name: Bruce Hammer
E-mail: mayor@fruitcakecity.net
Website: www.fruitcakecity.net
Subject: Presidential Endorsement
I agree with almost everything you said except the bit about
stem cell research. George Bush is not against stem cell research. He
is against federal tax money being used to finance it. I support his
position on that. I don't believe the taxpayers of this country should
foot the bill to research what is in reality an unproven product.
While it has promise, there is no medical use for stem cells, and none on
the near horizon. But the real issue is what happens after the
taxpayers pay the bills to perfect the research? Private medical and drug
companies will reap billions in financial rewards. I would support the
funding if it was tied to a legally binding requirement that private
companies give away the benefits of stem cell treatment to patients. But
why should the taxpayers pay for it twice: once for research and again
for treatment? I believe in private enterprise. Stem cell research may
prove to be a complete bust. I say let the medical and drug companies
fund their own research. And just so you know, diabetes, heart
disease, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's run in my family. So I am not
turning a blind I to those more unfortunate than myself. I simply believe
public money should not be used to finance future corporate profits.
Editor's Note: I agree with you that scientific research should not be federally funded. But when the government has made scientific researchers as dependent as welfare recipients, as is the case now, they use the threat of funding cancellations as a form of de facto censorship. Also, Bush was very clear in the second debate that he's against the use of embryonic stem cells. This is consistent with his anti-abortion position. (JR)
October 4, 2004 at 19:50:17
Name: lushbover
Subject: Dagny's perspective on last nights debate
WWDTD? Capitalism reigns supreme, of course, but would Dagny Taggart agree that "dudn't" is a word?
Editor's Note: I seem to be one of the few people who thought the debate should be judged primarily on the ideas presented. If Kerry wins the election because of his performance in the debate, my opinion of Americans will sink to a new low. (JR)
October 1, 2004 at 10:59:14
Name: Louise Kozminski
E-mail: lkozminski@ndpadvertising.com
Subject: Deer in the headlights...dahhhh
Or Bush has got to have HIS WAR. Every President has got to have a war. Feeds the ego - feeds the addiction - no matter what the consequences. What's a WORKAHOLIC to do? War - It's such HARD WORK! burning all those calories watching those young American men and women get killed fighting for your own misguided cause. You can never be too rich or too arrogant or too empty headed.
Editor's Note: Anyone who denounces the war in Iraq without defending the destruction of terrorists and proposing some sort of alternate goal is not worth the naysaying ground they walk on. The usual alternative (which you may not even agree with) of simply finding Osama bin Laden and treating him to bread and water in a high security American prison, won't cut it. Terrorists are supported by governments. Although war with all of these governments may not be necessary, it stands to reason that some of these governments may not be open to diplomacy. Being "against war" as an absolute is juvenile at best. (JR)
October 1, 2004 at 11:20:03
Name: Don Watkins
E-mail: egoist@gmail.com
Website: angermanagement.mu.nu
Subject: Your Idol To Be
Wow, she asked you to tone it down and then referred you to
*my* writing? From one of my Atlasphere articles: "The next morning, I
came before a judge. Then they arrested me again because, well, you
know, court clerks don't like cleaning up that kind of mess." How can
they complain about you talking about blowjobs and yet let me write about
the result?
Anyway, just wanted to say I no longer write for The Atlasphere, which
is so saturated with Kelleyites that they end up saying the sorts of
things Jennifer said to you.
Editor's Note: My idol, indeed. I'm not a fan of poetry, but I will take a little poetic justice any day. There's nothing more pretentious than (a) declaring a group of people incapable of processing new ideas, and (b) assuming the duty of protecting them. I guess that "toleration", in practice, means being intolerant of anyone who might upset the emotionally weak. (JR)
September 29, 2004 at 17:54:33
Name: disgruntled student
E-mail: treverketch@hotmail.com
Subject: school violence
if the school systems think they can slap a uniform on this
boy, they got an other thing coming. they think that I will stand idoly
by while you govenment freaks take away our freedom to dress. fuck em'.
I will not be an other mindless sheep... BITCH
Editor's Note: I don't know, I think there are more important things to worry about. If I were you, I'd focus on trying to make it through a school day without dozing off in more than half a dozen classes. If you could do that, I'd be impressed. Better yet, try actually learning something in spite of those uninspiring pricks, go on to college, make a shitload of money, then send them a photo of yourself setting fire to your school yearbook. Personally, I think it would make a great alternative to a Hallmark Christmas card. (JR)
September 29, 2004 at 10:45:10
Name: adam
Subject: Jason Roth sounds like a bigot
i'm gay and i don't look at other people's dicks in the
bathroom. also, despite my being gay, i don't like other people looking at
my dick in the bathroom. and when Jason Roth says things like "i'm not a
bigot and if you wanna look at dicks that's all great and if you're a
gay doctor awesome but don't ever touch me cause i totally only like
pussy" he sounds like a homophobic, mysoginist, asshole bigot. probably he
is or he'd realize that saying you are not a bigot doesn't make you not
a bigot when you are saying all kinds of bigotted things. and if he
really weren't a bigot he wouldn't have felt the need to write about this.
hey, Jason, just admit you are a bigot and start writing for the KKK
website or something.
Editor's Note: Don't try to tell me that gay people, in private, don't talk about the oddities of heterosexuals. The fact is, different takes on something as emotionally significant as sexuality should provoke a strong emotional reaction. The expression of the emotion need not take the form of a lynching, for Christ's sake. Speaking of which, at your recommendation, I just took a look at the KKK website. I see that listed 19th in their platform is "We support a national law against the practice of homosexuality". I have to say I'm surprised that this is of less a priority for them than saving the environment (sixth on their list is: "Cut off trade with countries that refuse to establish strict environmental laws.") I wonder if they're campaigning for cleaner-burning crosses. What could be more embarrassing to a Klansman than coming down with a case of black lung? (JR)
September 29, 2004 at 00:38:47
Name: Eric
Subject: E-mail I received
I thought you would enjoy this. I sent the "On Triple
Splitz-O Cups and Starving Children" article to one of my best friends.
Here's what she said about me in an e-mail sent after reading it:
"I think that you are possibly the most ignorant person I have ever met
and I would prefer if you never contacted me again. That aritcal [sic]
MIGHT have been a reasonably intelligent thing for a fifth grader to
consider, on the grounds that their prosperity couldn't be contingent on
the exploitation of people whom they've 'never met'. But seeing as how
you're not 10 years old, I'm not going to waste my energy educating you
about international economic relations since you are either too blind,
stupid, or intentionally self-servingly ignorant to research it
yourself."
It's ironic that Objectivists are considered to be the ones who
are closed-minded.
Editor's Note: Why do you think it is that I could read that and know it was a female? Hmm... I think it's the wordy indignation. (JR)
September 21, 2004 at 23:22:16
Name: David B
E-mail: afronigga6@msn.com
Subject: I hate reality TV!
Reality TV makes NO sense! You have people leading everyday
lives and it's put on the screen. The same thing that they get paid
thousands of dollars for, I do it everyday.If Jessica Simpson waters her
damn lawn, it's like "Woooooow!" And just to think, one of the networks
has the balls to name one of their stupid series "The real World"
Pleeeeease! Why would people watch? All they do is take phone calls, cry and
fall in love with everyone else of the opposite sex. In my opinion,
reality TV is nothing more than bullshit. I have to suffer though, because
my cousin watches that shit everyday. Have you ever thought that since
reality TV has no professional actors, that America watches a lot of
untalented people because of reality TV? Food for thought.
Editor's Note: The lack of acting talent is the least thing that concerns me. At least when the reality TV star has a nervous breakdown after having sex with her father on a desert island and eating handfuls of live wijuti grubs, you know it's for real. (JR)
September 17, 2004 at 12:58:54
Name: Helene
E-mail: sickofwords@antisocial.com
Subject: Making Friends with More Objectivists
Wasn't it a value of Ayn Rand's to not change you or your
work for the sake of another? That just seems kind of odd to me that an
Objectivist would ask you to censor your work, especially after she asked
you to write the article in the first place.
Editor's Note: The DSM needs an entry for individualists against individualism. The disorder also manifests itself in self-hating Jews and Christians against Christ. (JR)
September 16, 2004 at 11:23:01
Name: Benjamin
Subject: Real (Fat) Women Have Curves
All I have to say is that who ever wrote this article is VERY shallow.
Editor's Note: Your girlfriend must be HUGE. (JR)
September 15, 2004 at 15:51:09
Name: alatheo
Subject: Two Johns, Two Whores
You seem to think that your opinions represent "thinking."
Editor's Note: Looks like I fooled you. (JR)
September 5, 2004 at 20:57:25
Name: Peter Carter
E-mail: happyrpr@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Satire?
My elephant's ass! It's just reactionary redneckery. You really think more hate will make the world a better place?
Editor's Note: The reduction of unpleasant ideas to vague concepts like "hate" is both overdone and sloppy. Is the object of hatred deserving of hatred? Is the argument that something deserves to be hated true or false? Does "hate" really have anything to do with it, or are you just too weak to think about it? The unspoken implication is that any person who hates anything is tantamount to a Nazi. Well, feel free to love your Nazis. Some of us hate them. (JR)
September 5, 2004 at 18:08:07
Name: George
Subject: Socialism?
"A vote for Bush does risk, maybe even guarantee, the
continued slide into socialism." Maybe I'm even more dense than my friends
suggest, but how so? Even as a HORRIBLE excuse for a "small government"
Republican, I think "Dubya" is still a fair ways off from so much as
resembling socialism. If anything, I have found Kerry's proposed policies
to resemble socialism far more. My disagreements with Bush generally
stem from many of his social stances. However, these disagreements have
never overridden the appeal of the increased potential of "smaller
government" policies promised by most neo-cons. Regardless, as you say,
when it comes to handing Terrorists the business end of a GBU-24, Bush
is definitely my man.
Editor's Note: Bush has increased spending on social programs, and promises to continue doing so. The more property that is stolen from individuals in order to increase other individuals' dependence on that property, the further we get from capitalism and the closer to socialism. Throw federally funded religious charities into the mix, and you have religious socialism. (You might argue that "religious fascism" is more likely, but whatever, "let's not argue about semantics".) If I were a betting man, I would say that the type of presidential candidate who would be most likely to bring us to complete tyranny would be a socially-liberal Republican or a religious-conservative Democrat. The more well-meaning they are, the better. In fact, get them both together. Put John McCain and Joe Lieberman together on the same ballot and you'll really flush everything down the toilet. People like me might even vote for them. Then in the following election, bipartisan campaigning would become the norm and we'd be well on our way to a one-party system. The "primrose way to the everlasting bonfire". (JR)
September 3, 2004 at 23:22:43
Name: Michael (Bitter Objectivist)
E-mail: spitlermike@surewest.net
Subject: The new endorsement
Yeah, as much as I don't like Bush, Kerry is just plain
worse. For a while I entertained the idea of voting for Kerry, in order to
spite Bush for all the things he does to piss me off.
However, survival does come first and I have decided that that comes
before the spitefulness I feel.
My only objection to your endorsement is that Bush has talked tough
before, only to become pussified later. Sure, he finally invaded Iraq,
but only after months of delay with the UN. He hasn't done anything to
halt Iran from getting nukes, and at the current rate by the time he
ever decides anything it will be too late.
Goddamn it! I should be the fucking president, and if not me then you
would be the second best option. We would show those Islamofascist
fuckers just what a country led by a leader with balls can do!
As much as I doubt that Bush will do what must be done, I know now that
Kerry WON'T do it, and as the old saying goes: "stick to the devil you
know."
Editor's Note: Based on what you're saying, I don't think you have anything to disagree with. I did write, "[Bush] thinks we ought to act. It might be slower than I would like, but there is a clear difference between action and inaction." If I thought that delayed action was no better than inaction, I might vote for Kerry. But there's no denying that the military action taken by Bush was beneficial to the security of the free world. And not to split hairs, but this choice is not about choosing the devil you know over the one you don't. In other words, the election isn't about who would do us the most harm, but rather who would do the most to protect us. (JR)
September 3, 2004 at 02:27:17
Name: Doug
E-mail: dhaze048@uottawa.com
Subject: Exercise
Working to the point of failure is the hardest part of
Mentzer's program. Sometimes you don't really know if you have reached the
point of muscular failure or if your brain has just sent so many "Stop,
for the lust of Christ!!! Stop!!!" signals, that you choose to stop.
That might be the cause of your minimal gains.
Of course, I have been reading a lot about Stu Mittleman, endurance
super-athlete and many things he has to say about health and fitness seem
more sensible than wracking your body so much that you can't move into
a squat postion without screaming in agony for 4 days.
There are other methods to build muscle, it depends on what your goals
are.
Finally, to the dude who was arguing about the ass being the strongest
muscle in the body --- The truth is: the brain is. If you exercise that
muscle correctly, you can lift more weight than with the rest of your
entire body combined. *grins*
Editor's Note: I think I do generally lift to true muscular failure. (Hence, nearly every day my girlfriend has to hear me utter my now famous line: "I'm sore.") Still, you could be right. Whatever the case, I'm sticking with multiple sets. I'm just not convinced that one set per weight is enough, plus I'm having success with what I'm doing. (JR)
September 2, 2004 at 16:49:33
Name: Wes
Subject: reader comments and the like
Love the site! Reading the idiotic comments, such as with
the berkeley communists, is pretty good too. Thanks for a great way to
kill time!
Editor's Note: I kill time to write the stuff, so you should have to kill some, too, dammit. Ah, a perfect marriage of writer and reader. (JR)
September 1, 2004 at 19:31:14
Name: Shannon Parcel
Subject: Real [Fat] Women Have Curves
Hey, i was reading your social commentary on fat
women and just wanted to thank you for the laughs
and pointing out the social injustice. I have
always been underweight (5'9" 122 lb) and am really
sick of obese women justifying their fatness by
giving me crap for having a fast metabolism. I
can't tell you how many times fat women have told me
i need to eat more or that i was a "skinny bitch"
just because I didn't stop at the donut shop on the
way to work or order a pizza for lunch. Sure, big
boobs and a bit more curves might be nice, but I
much prefer my skinny little butt to those gigantic
curtains of fat. Thanks for sticking up for us
little people.
Editor's Note: And I thought those bastards were supposed to be jolly. (JR)
September 1, 2004 at 12:38:07
Name: Jared Seehafer
Subject: Making Friends with More Objectivists
I'd ask The Atlasphere why "scrotum" and "oral sex" is more
offensive than "masturbating in a court room" and "[coming] before a
judge" ("No, Seriously: Community Service").
Editor's Note: And here's the ironic part: those were his two best lines. (JR)
August 30, 2004 at 19:23:35
Name: Christine Stone
Subject: Re: Making Friends
Yup, the word "adore" should have sent up red flags. Jason,
my stuffed animal collection is "adorable", your writing *ain't*. Your
writing is thought-provoking. Your style is of the "plain-speaking,
blunt-dealing" variety. I don't always agree with what you write, but you
never leave any doubt in my mind as to what you are trying to
communicate. Short Anglo-Saxon words get points across remarkably well.
Bottom line: Roark didn't need the A.G.A; you don't need the
Atlasphere.
Editor's Note: You don't always agree with what I write? Now I'm really pissed. (JR)
August 30, 2004 at 13:22:01
Name: Dan G.
E-mail: gibsondj@ufl.edu
Subject: Objectivist in name only?
It seems that her admiration was wholly disingenuous, and the
line about adapting your work evaporated any credibility she had left.
Where exactly do a publication's vocal chords reside anyway? After
reading your submission, if she didn't like it, she should have just said
"that's not what I'm looking for, sorry." But to ask you to change it,
let alone to follow someone else's style, after lauding your work?
Something stinks...
"She had to go and blow it. Then she had to go and blow it." You
brought a tear to my eye with that one.
On a serious note, if your lover has to ask for the commitment
then she hasn't the judgment of a turd; that's why I would make for the
door post-haste. She should be able to ascertain whether or not you
care about her and are committed/devoted to her. In asking for it
verbally, it's like she ignored all of the attention that you gave her (or
took it for granted) and that she wants more. Your security blanket
explanation was suitable (the "more" that she wants), but I thought I'd add
my $0.02.
P.S. I'm not sure about the pre-emptive dating of events on coins.
Perhaps they could be "desired goals" coins instead of "commemorative"
ones.
Editor's Note: You make a good point. Incidentally, probably the best criticism of my article would have been "bitching about women who whine about commitment is a cliché in itself". Also, I think Shakespeare outdid me: "Put out the light, then put out the light." (JR)
August 30, 2004 at 10:17:22
Name: Dan Edge
E-mail: dan_edge@hotmail.com
Subject: Jennifer and the 'C' Word
Hey Jason,
I agree with Jennifer on your 'C' Word article. The Atlasphere is one
of those sites that tries to appeal to Oists of all types and ages.
When you have such a broad range of members, you tone down the language
such that it would be appropriate for an 80-year old as well as a
15-year old.
I also agree with Jennifer that the content of your article doesn't
speak to The Atlasphere's audience. The whole article, you're basically
saying "irrational women do this, and so rational men respond in such
and such a way." You never mention how a rational woman ought to act, or
why a rational woman might want a commitment. Your intended audience
in this case seems to be either irrational women, or rational men who
get mixed up with irrational women.
I think what Jennifer was trying to say in her letter was that she
wanted you to write an article assuming a *rational* audience. Assume that
the reader is a rational person, and try to teach them something new.
Take me for instance. Your article didn't teach me anything. I
already know that there are irrational women in the world with psychological
problems, and I'm pretty good at identifying them. If I read a similar
article on your site, it would be different because the purpose of your
site is to make fun of the irrational, which your article does pretty
well. But articles on the Atlasphere have a different function.
Now, I can understand why you would say that you would prefer not to
write in a style that would be appropriate for The Atlasphere (because
you are certainly capable of doing so). You like to write in your own
way. But you're calling Jennifer anal-retentive just because she said
your article doesn't speak to her audience.
This is ironic because, for one, she's right. Secondly, you say that
these anal-retentive objectivists take offense too easily, but *you*
are the one getting your panties all in a buch over it . Her e-mail to
you was polite, direct, and accurate, and you seem to have taken great
offense at it. She didn't freak out, you did.
So I say, chill brother! I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt, but
life goes on.
In case you couldn't tell, Jennifer is my buddy, so I gotta stand up
for her. Besides that, she's right.
Keep fighting the good fight,
--Dan Edge
Editor's Note: Sorry, Dan, you're putting words into her mouth. She didn't say any of what you did, either before or after I wrote it. She asked me to contribute based on her knowledge of my writing on this website. If she wanted something significantly different, she should have said so, or said "thanks but no thanks, we don't publish that kind of stuff". And yes, her saccharine e-mail pissed me off. But not because she didn't like what I wrote; I sure as hell don't write for the mainstream. (JR)
August 30, 2004 at 10:17:22
Name: Jenn
Subject: Runner's World
Ok. I find virtually every other article on your website
hilarious and a great way to kill some time at the office. But, I have to
stand up for Runner's World and The Complete Book of Running. I know
the book is pretty cheesy, but if you really love running, why wouldn't
you want to read about it? And, if you're not a runner, than of course
you have no way of knowing just how much mental preperation it takes to
run 26.2 or more miles. I've run two marathons, and in my opinion,
completing them is much more will and mental strength than physical
training.
As for Runner's World, well I never read the Writer's Digest so I can't
comment on the comparison. But, I have found no source on the web,
except maybe the Runner's World website, with as much information about
training programs, nutrition, racing stragegies, equipment (yes I mean
shoes) reviews and hands-down over the top movitational articles to get
you out the door on a cold, dark day. And, all of the Runner's World
staff are accomplished runners at their indivdual distances.
So, culture bash away, cause I know it sounds funny to a non-runner,
but just know who you're bashing. Or better yet, sign yourself up for a
marathon and when you're hitting the wall at mile 18 you'll wish you
had read that 36-pages on the mental side of running!
Editor's Note: I've done a decent amount of running (and ran cross country back in high school), and I agree that the mental aspect of long-distance running is the most important. I just can't picture myself reading a book about it. Also, this particular book was on "running", not on "marathon running". Hence, the joke. This being said, I've read some pretty specialized books myself, so I can see why "other people's" specialized reading may seem crazy to someone else. (I'm reading my second book on healing back pain, for Christ's sake.) Also, it's pretty damn cool that you've run two marathons. (JR)
August 30, 2004 at 03:39:57
Name: Lloyd Hammel
Subject: China needs the Olympic
I do not agree with you. I think China needs this Olympic.
Editor's Note: I'm rethinking my position on this one. China is definitely getting better, and international relations sure seems to be the reason for that. (JR)
August 29, 2004 at 02:18:06
Name: anon.
Subject: communists
How is Berkeley full of communists? That is bullshit...are
you from Texas or are you some sort of bush supporter? Do you think it's
a good thing that are young are dieing in a war over oil dose that make
you feel like a patriot to in fear blindly fallow Bush's lies. Our
electoral college elected president. Communists and anti war liberal
democrats are to entirely different types of people and I think you should do
the research before you fallaciously call Berkeley a communists
sprouting city.
Editor's Note: Well, I think we can at least agree on one thing. There sure as fuck aren't any educated communists in Berkeley. (JR)
August 28, 2004 at 18:43:51
Name: Mike Tully
Subject: Olympics Bashing
Is it ok if I bash the assholes who thank God but don't even mention their coaches?
Editor's Note: Yes, I'd have to put that in the "allowable" category. George Carlin once pointed out that religious athletes thank God for their successes, but never blame him for their losses. Wouldn't you like to hear that, just once? (JR)
August 26, 2004 at 22:23:18
Name: Jade
E-mail: Sin_In_A_Box@hotmail.com
Subject: Poll
According to the poll results; your site is really just a bunch of
sarcastic intellectual but none the less HORNY BASTARDS.
-Jade
Editor's Note: You're on to me. Now, what exactly is the sin in the box? I don't suppose it's this? (JR)
August 26, 2004 at 18:29:56
Name: Jessica
E-mail: jat@uchicago.edu
Subject: Grammatical correction
I observed in your rejected Yahoo! personal ad that you
mistake a contraction for a possessive in a sentence beginning "Someone
who's idea of a good time..." "Who's" should be "whose." You of all people
should be more careful.
Editor's Note: Man, I'm getting slammed by U. of Chicago chicks this month. Thanks for catching that one. (JR)
August 25, 2004 at 19:32:40
Name: mike
Subject: Ass Muscle Analysis
I am writing in response to whoever wrote the ass analysis
letter. I have to disagree with about 90 percent of it's content. The
buttocks is the largest and most powerful structure in the human
body(from a muscular standpiont). It has the greatest overall affect on your
other muscles as well as your metabolism. Also, hip extension is a very
important biological funtion, which makes daily tasks easier to
perform. What I am saying here is that if you are going to work one muscle,
the buttocks is it.
Editor's Note: What you're saying sounds plausible. It just so happens that I've never seen a guy use that ass machine, and I've never seen an overweight woman use it. I was just using process of elimination and a little deduction. (JR)
August 25, 2004 at 09:50:52
Name: GRICCY111
Subject: Jesus Christ
Why don't you leave Jesus Christ out of your stuff? Although I'm not particularly religious I wouldn't use Moses, Buddha, Christ, etc. in humor. The best comedians ever stay clear of anything religious oriented. You do hurt some folks (not me) and that's not what comedy is about and I have a bigger sense of humor than anyone.
Editor's Note: The best comedians... huh? You oughtta get out of the house more often. Some comedians even talk about politics. The crazy ones even bring up sex. (JR)
August 25, 2004 at 06:38:53
Name: shammer
E-mail: shammer26@hotmail.com
Subject: Comment
God forgives you! From a Proud Catholic!
Editor's Note: How do you know whether God forgives me? For all you know, maybe He's gonna go "Old Testament" on my ass. (JR)
August 24, 2004 at 21:58:13
Name: anon.
Subject: Disagree
I really dont like how you are saying about the movie. Girls
always try to be like a model for guys. I am not one skinny girl. But I
just don't get why girls should be skinny to get a guy. Sometimes I
wish I was skinny but I am not. I dont eat alot. I mean that girls
shouldnt be a tooth pick. Its more about who you are not what you look like.
Editor's Note: This article must have been posted on the Seventeen magazine website. (You would have thought I was advocating genocide by the number of comments on this one.) Anyway, I didn't say anything about the movie, since I didn't see it and really have no desire to see it. But as far as the title, it's derogatory towards thin women. (JR)
August 21, 2004 at 01:06:11
Name: Mary Beth
E-mail: mbtull@uchicago.edu
Subject: Olympic advertisements
I'm having a bit of trouble with this article. I can't seem
to resolve a discrepency I noticed. You begin by saying:
"Is Visa an official sponsor of more than one country's Olympic team? . . . I want to know if my bar tabs are going to support the French pole
vaulting team. If they are, I'm paying in cash, goddammit."
I took this to mean that you did not want to do some or all of your
business with VISA that you would normally because of other business
agreements VISA may have. Therefore, you are prepared to change your
behavior so that VISA wouldn't get your money because some of it may go to
other group you don't like with whom VISA does business.
This is obviously the practice of many good capitalists, including
myself. However, after asking that VISA "disclose . . . in their
commercials" any relationships it may have with other teams, you then proceed to
chide Home Depot for doing that very thing:
"Why don't you just tell me what you sell, and if I like it, I'll buy
the goddamn thing. . . I deal with companies who make good stuff at good
prices."
Home Depot has a business relationship with their athletes, as
explained in their website.
"Since 1992, Home Depot has employed nearly 330 Olympic and Paralympic
hopefuls through the U.S. Olympic Committee's Olympic Job Opportunities
Program (OJOP) and similar programs in Canada and Puerto Rico."
"Through the programs, Home Depot offers its athlete-associates
full-time compensation for a flexible 20-hour workweek that accommodates
demanding training and competition schedules."
In one instance, you call out for disclosure of business relationships
because it will affect your behavior toward that company. In the next,
however, you tell the company to keep quiet about it's business
relationships because all you care about is the product you may buy from them.
If VISA endorsed France, it's credit card would have had the same
interest rate that appealed to you before. It has a good product, so why
would you care about France? Which is it, Jason?
Oh, and I, too, must admit to watching synchronized diving. But men's
gymnastics was ten times better!
Editor's Note: I'm glad you're reading so closely and taking the time to write down your comments. I probably would have cleared up all of my contradictions by now if more people had taken the time to point them out. The Visa comment was more of an observation or a joke than something that really concerned me. Even if they did support other countries' Olympic teams, I wouldn't be worried about a scandal of American consumer funds being funneled to the France pole vault team. I just thought it would be funny if Visa were to announce in their commercials that they also supported all of our competitors. I would modify my behavior to prevent my money from supporting certain groups, however. I no longer buy French wine, for example. (Not that buying California wine is much of a tribulation.) The program that Home Depot has is respectable. The problem is that they didn't mention it on the commercial, all they did was point out which Olympian had which job at Home Depot. (Thanks for mentioning the website.) You are correct that I overgeneralized when I said "just tell me what you sell". But you took my quote out of context. What I said first, the thing that bothered me, was: "I'm tired of tenuous connections that companies try to make between themselves and every socially-acceptable cause on the planet." The key word is "tenuous", which is what the connection was on the Home Depot commercial. If they had said something to the effect of: "All things being equal, if you need to buy hardware, buy it from us because we have this specific Olympic program," and then they described the program, that would have been fine. I can see why these two particular topics caused confusion, though (especially with the combination of sarcasm and an overgeneralization). But the main thing that united both topics was my annoyance at corporations having a tendency to be full of crap in the PR department. (JR)
August 17, 2004 at 20:43:37
Name: Kris
Subject: It's An Abortion, Not a Tomato
First, I'd like to say that your website has been fun to
read. Second, I would like to agree with you on your views in this
article. It was brave of you as a guy to say this. I am a woman, and when I
express this opinion, I get crazy looks, but I guess that's what I get
for making sense. Marriage is a good indicator for agreeing to have
children. If the guy says that he doesn't want the kid, then he has made
his decision, the rest is up to the woman. Whatever she chooses at
this point, should have nothing to do with the guy.
While I'm here, I'm going to voice a similar opinion to you. I think
that the government should offer a fertility buyout program. After
having all kinds of lawyers chew on this to make sure it is air-tight, and
constitutional, the government would offer people, men and women a
certain amount of money ($50,000 or so, plus medical expenses) to
permanantly sterilize themselves. A completely voluntary program, legally
air-tight contracts. It may seem expensive, but in the long run it will
save billions and decrease crime. The poor will have less children, the
government will pay less aid, the children won't grow up to either go to
jail or have tons of kids. It's a little on the cusp, but I'm telling
you, it would work. Just a rant from a chick living in the junior
ghetto of St. Louis, MO.
Editor's Note: I think it's safer to keep government and sterility as far apart as possible. Here's a better idea for reducing the amount of aid that the government pays: how about they just don't pay it? (JR)
August 16, 2004 at 22:41:47
Name: Michael
E-mail: spitlermike@surewest.net
Subject: Buford not dead yet
Hehe, that was a good one. What gave you the idea for that
one?
Editor's Note: I don't know, but if I hadn't gotten up out of bed at 5:30 or so in the morning and wrote the idea down, it probably would have been forgotten with whatever dream I had that night. (JR)
August 16, 2004 at 07:12:44
Name: fucker
Subject: go fuck yourself
Shut up before I come over there and kick your nuts so hard
they dislodge your tonsils into where your eyeballs used to be right
before I grabbed your mother's dildo out of your father's ass and used it
to poke your brain out through the back of your John Merrick cranium,
Mr. Monotone Drone.
Editor's Note: Jesus, I've never seen boredom get someone so pissed off. Actually, I take that back. I think I've gotten that pissed from being bored, too. (JR)
August 15, 2004 at 08:39:02
Name: Miradee lagoc
Subject: Euthanasia
If you want to kill yourself more power to you!
Editor's Note: Very witty. You really got him with that argument. I guess the only way to truly defend Euthanasia is to kill yourself, right? (JR)
August 8, 2004 at 21:39:58
Name: Doug
E-mail: dhaze048@uottawa.ca
Subject: Working Out
Speaking of working out, have you read anything by Mike
Mentzer?
I've been working out according to his HIT principals since March, and
am in the best shape of my life.
Having discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism early in his body building
career, Mentzer approached bodybuilding from a philosophical
perspective. If you haven't heard of him, try reading "High-Intensity Training the
Mike Mentzer Way".
It's so easy to make fun of Mike's stoicness and yet admire his
greatness all in the same moment.
Editor's Note: I have read most of that book. It made a lot of sense, and it was cool that someone integrated an explicit philosophy with weightlifting. I even recommended the book to a friend, who had success with it. It didn't work for me, though, so I went back to my previous methods based on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. I do concede that I may not have been implementing his techniques 100% correctly. But in the end, he didn't sell me on the idea that one set per exercise was enough. After I lost strength, I went back to 3 sets. (JR)
August 7, 2004 at 13:42:09
Name: Mary Beth
E-mail: mbtull@uchicago.edu
Subject: elimidate
What's this about Elimidate and a firearm? I searched google
and some news sites, and nothing came up. Care to share the story?
Editor's Note: There's no story yet, only that the producers of Elimidate don't seem to allow the discharging of firearms on their show. That's unfortunate for the occasional sane individuals that make an appearance. (JR)
August 5, 2004 at 15:06:14
Name: anon.
Subject: George W. and His Stem Cell Lecture
Jason your a dumbass.....
Barbra Streisand Neil Diamond Willie Nelson Billy Crystal
Please join
Ben Affleck * Warren Beatty and Annette Bening
Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen * Laurie and Larry David
Benicio del Toro * Robert DeNiro * Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman
Leonardo DiCaprio * Kirsten Dunst * Rob and Michele Reiner Laurence Fishburne and Gina Torres * Dustin Hoffman * Ben Stiller
For An Evening with John Kerry and Friends
All of the "Hollywood Has-Beens" will be there. . .
The MEDIA will be there. . .
Editor's Note: Why, do those guys also think that stem cell research should be legal? I know Kerry does, and he's right. Unfortunately, that's about the only thing he's right about. Even when he defends it, he attacks something else he shouldn't be. E.g., the bill "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003" which he signed as a co-sponsor on July 13. By the way, what you just witnessed was a human being stringing together words to communicate a thought. You should try it sometime. (JR)
August 4, 2004 at 08:40:43
Name: Stephen
Subject: 40 Ways to Fuck With a Bad Waiter
dont mess with us or well spike all your food so you have the
runs for 3 days running and then as you thikn its ok you die
Editor's Note: You should consider yourself proud if you get an order right, let alone the recipe for a slow, painful death. (JR)
August 3, 2004 at 16:44:19
Browse older messages in our previous reader comment archive.
To make your own post, please visit the main comment page.
|
Back to: home  10,000 frenchmen
|
|
