She’s baaaaaack

Sort of. Rabid (maybe even paranoid) anti-gay crusader and war-mongerer Judy Paris is no longer blogging for Granite Grok, but she’s been active in the comments section there lately and has only become more of a spectacle since I last saw any output from her.

I’ve been harassing Skip Murphy, the remaining Granite Grok blogger in the wake of Doug Lambert taking a break (and don’t ask me why the Monitor has found any of this newsworthy), because Skip, if anything, is even less able to string a sentence together or display any sense of awareness about the world than Doug is. If you enjoy Schadenfreude with your Wednesdays, have a look at some of these links:

  • Here, in the course of claiming that Lambert has suffered “severe” consequences for his actions (including the loss of a few unpaid gigs and nothing more) and that people should just move on, she tells me I’m a legend in my own mind and that I know nothing about God and the Bible (half true). She assures me she’ll pray for me, thereby completing a very predictable circuit of moron-flow.
  • Next I decided to point out to Skip that the sentence “After a while, the continued back handed slaps by the President at his own country, our country, seems to be summed up by this:” is a horror show of gratuitous caps, missing hyphens and subject-verb mismatching (never mind the idiocy of the statement itself; I just wanted to tweak his balls). Skip hasn’t said anything about it or corrected himself, but Judy jumped in and accused me of being both a member of the thought police and a “grammer expert.” She then demanded the URL to my blog (which is already linked in every comment I have made at Granite Grok) and accused me, with more vapidity than usual, of firing away behind a wall of anonymity. when I pointed out that the link to this blog was not exactly hidden, she said she didn’t notice it because she’s a busy person and doesn’t have OCD.
  • Finally, I pointed out to the Skip the wonderful irony and inanity of titling a post “Concord Monitor – Main Stream Media shows it can’t even do the simplest of fact checking.” Earlier today, the Monitor mistakenly ran the headline “Lambert shuts down his blog” and then changed it to “Lambert stops blogging” when Skip complained. I wrote that calling out all of the “Main Stream [sic] Media” on account of one simple mistake is like claiming that the existence of the miserable and beshitted wreck called Granite Grok implies that there are no competent bloggers. Judy has yet to chime in on this one.

You can’t make characters like Judy up. As for the blog itself, it’s enjoyed a modest increase in site hits thanks to the local publicity and a few links from people ripping Lambert, and I’m sure Skip sees this as his chance to shine. That’s good, because the more he writes, the more evident it is to anyone with a pulse what a dolt he is, with followers like Judy reflecting the tenor of the place.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 3:43 am

    Lambert has a spoonfull of brains, at best. But you….are a stalker. You are dead inside. When I see the hate and rage that you leave all over the internet it makes my skin crawl. You are a typical leftist: smug & nasty. You don’t say much on your blog, but I’ll give you this: you know how to hate. You know how to humiliate. I suppose that’s something….

    • #2 by Warren on November 20, 2009 - 4:28 pm

      You left out “elitist”.

  2. #3 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 9:14 am

    Yes, it’s all about HATE and RAGE and STALKING and being DEAD INSIDE and SMUGNESS and NASTINESS (which of course all come from being a LEFTIST), not about the basic idiocy I see out there. Feel free to add to that litany–you’re really getting to me and I plan to change my ways very soon on account of it.

    Anyway, I’ll duly note the thoughtful concerns of some mind-reading troll who calls itself “whatever.” Glad you enjoy the blog.

  3. #4 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 1:10 pm

    I figured out that you were a drunk and drug abuser, and have been for most of your life before I found a post by you saying as much. It’s obvious from your style of attack what’s going on with you. It does not take a mind-reader. As for your politics, and intellect, take a go at some thoughtful, intelligent conservatives out there instead of pouding the likes of Skip and Doug which is much too easy. How about this: look up someone like Lawrence Auster who runs a conservative blog that deals with a lot of issuess that you touch on like race & IQ, crime, Darwin. I doubt you have the balls to get involved in a give and take with him, though it might do you some good to get your shallow ausmptions blasted to pieces. Auster’s a gentleman. give it a try, lol, you will not last two minutes in the company of a first rate intellect.

  4. #5 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 1:35 pm

    Excellent use of the ad hominem! You’ve done a lot of research on me considering that I supposedly have nothing to say and only spew leftist hate and bile. I’ve never been a drug abuser, but sure I’ve been a drunk. If I didn’t know that, I probably wouldn’t have written about it. If you think, however, that you are going to upset my apple cart by bringing this up or that it has anything to do with my opinions about the Grok crowd or the other things that chap your tender hide, then you’re even less perceptive than I thought.

    When have I written about “race & IQ, crime”? (It’s not clear whether the crime part goes with the race part or not.) I can think of maybe a scattered post or two, but these are certainly not pet topics.

    What makes you think I’m interested in conservative blogs and bloggers anyway? And if this guy (you were too lazy to offer a link and I’ve no interest in digging) is so good, what makes you think I’d have any quarrel with what he says? Might there be a reason I single out the morons and not the intelligent conservatives (or liberals)? What even suggests to you that my politics are far left? And why do you even care what I write about, which isn’t going to change just because your dumb ass is bitter about it? Jesus, I’m interrogating an anonymous nitwit here. Never mind. Besides, the way you write (rather like an ambitious fifth-grader) implies that you are in no position to determine what is and is not a first-rate intellect.

    I don’t even know why you’re crying anyway. You agree that Skip and Doug are idiots, so why are you so obsessed? Just trying to get a few licks in from behind your keyboard because you don’t like anyone you perceive as too liberal by definition? Don’t like my “hateful” style? Then by all means, fuck off! I don’t need traffic from goofballs any more than you need the aggravation of trying to string whole sentences together in comment fields.

    I’ve never been out to “humiliate” anyone. That’s just one of the many bullshit things you wrote in your first comment without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Damned trolls.

  5. #6 by Il Fuoco on November 19, 2009 - 1:39 pm

    I have a dumb question: What sort of “give and take” does one have on an “issue” like “Darwin”? It seems to me that you can either agree with the consensus of virtually all modern biologists regarding Darwin and the theory of evolution via natural selection or you can side with the intellectual equivalent of flat-earthers. That hardly constitutes “give and take”.

    And am the only one who finds the tone of whatever’s post to be akin to “my father can beat up your father”?

    I will agree that Skip and Doug are easy targets, but that doesn’t mean that one is obliged to refrain from commenting on their blather.

  6. #7 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 2:02 pm

    One last thing about the Groksters (I’ve written about them a lot but I do get bored pretty quickly). Here’s the entirety of what got Doug in trouble:

    After Lambert uttered the slur, co-host Skip Murphy suggested they close the live feed but, instead, Lambert turned to the Web cam, made dance-like movements meant to mimic the way gay men walk, and said, “Yeah, you faggot. That’s right. I said it and I meant it. You are a reprobate. How the people, the Democrats-I think of some of the gray-haired ladies from the old party-would stand behind you is beyond me. You are a disgrace to yourself, to humanity, to mankind and to your party.”

    “Other than that, happy birthday, Ray, and many more-not,” he added before someone pulled the plug.

    A couple years ago, I wrote a post here criticizing a letter Judy had written to the Concord Monitor. Doug posted about this, quoting a paragraph of my post and writing:

    There are other parts not suitable for reprinting here, as we have a certain level of decency we try to uphold.

    I guess I now know what his interpretation of “decency” is.

  7. #8 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 5:52 pm

    Lol, no one can write well enough for you. In any event my gripe with you is about how you harassed Skip & Doug, and the people on his blog. It shows a real ugly personality. i see you don’t like me doing it to you over here ? Same difference..

    Fuoco take a look at Lawrence Auster on Darwin at his blog. He has caused me to pause, though I still don’t buy everthing he is selling.

    I’m done here.

  8. #9 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 6:06 pm

    One last thing and then I’m really done here:) You can’t link to Auster’s blog in a direct fashion ( I don’t know why ) so you need to punch in his name: Lawrence Auster, or VFR, or View From The Right.

  9. #10 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 6:07 pm

    “my gripe with you is about how you harassed Skip & Doug, and the people on his blog.”

    I “harassed” them? That’s creative. Is every one of their ill-informed tirades also an example of harassment? Come on, if something’s tossed into the public domain, it’s fair game. That includes anything I write here, which is why you’re wrong about me not liking whatever it is you’re doing here. You’re free to say whatever you want, and I’m free to respond as I like. It’s a beautiful scheme, is it not?

    I’m not the only one who had some strong words for Doug et al. at his blog. Others, in fact, were far more profane. To their credit, the Grokkers don’t filter out comments from their “adversaries” the way most wingnut blogs do, even the over-the-top stuff.

    Auster is an unabashed racist (apparently it’s gotten him in trouble before). Here’s one of his recent gems:

    Here’s the reality. Blacks are a danger to whites. More blacks are more “empowered,” more angry, more violent, and more dangerous than ever. Whites need to be aware of these facts. They need to talk about them publicly. They need to make this a public issue and push media and politicians to acknowledge it. They need to change their own behavior so as not to put themselves needlessly at risk from dangerous blacks. And they need to be prepared to defend themselves.

    I like how he claims to not be a racist through transparently hollow semantic games. He’s exactly right, though, that in the end, labels don’t matter–if you assume that an incident like the one that inspired this shitburst was racially motivated without any plausible rationale for doing so, it doesn’t matter whether someone can hang the label “racist” on you, because it’s clear no matter how you slice it that you’re an asshole. I notice that he offers no solutions to this “problem,” just warns people to watch out for the darkies. Charming.

  10. #11 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 6:22 pm

    You said you were harassing them right in this poast if you go back and look at it. As for you keeping your blog open for a poster like myself….I respect that. as for Auster, come on, he gives a lot of practicle advice about solutions, lol, on just about everything. You would need to spend some time reading him to get an understanding of where he is coming from. Of course that’s up to you. He’s a very engaging individual who will debate you in a respectful manner if you are inclined to do so.

  11. #12 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 6:30 pm

    Auster is not a racist, that’s the easy way out of any debate, but he’s not afraid to address the issue. Most of his blog is about the decline of the West, and what can be done about it. Like I said if you have the time go back several months on his blog and you will see it is not all about blacks, or race.

  12. #13 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 6:47 pm

    True, I did say I was harassing Skip. But I really don’t view my comments there as such, especially those directed at the now-lurking Doug and the ever-entertaining Judy. I’m through with that place for now, if that makes you feel any more confident in my inclinations. There’s nothing more to say there.

    Ironically I’m more apt than almost everyone I know to acknowledge differences between racial or ethnic groups (with an emphasis on running). I think it’s over the top to conclude, on the basis of zero evidence, that the beating described in the above link was racially motivated. People who yell at people in cars invite confrontation all the time. Blacks shoot up other blacks. The post was an example of making an unwarranted assumption and using it as a reason to blare on about a cherished belief.

    The guy’s a capable writer, sure, but I’m not sure the blog interests me. I’m really not politically minded here, I just home in on examples of idiocy wherever they crop up. Easy targets? Sure. Sue me.

  13. #14 by whatever on November 19, 2009 - 7:02 pm

    Auster is not for everyone that’s for sure. His take on Darwin is different from most anything I have seen out there, and he does a great job of getting his point across. His stand on racial issues is very up-front. He believes that racial differences in IQ matter, and tells us something about black crime stats, and behavior.

  14. #15 by bikemonkey on November 19, 2009 - 7:57 pm

    kemibe has an ugly personality whatever? no, he has a hilarious personality. it is only ugly if you think the truth is ugly. (and he don’t like me much so sod off on that one)

    funny how you wingers can stomach that nastiest of nonsense from your cotravellers but the second someone points out what asstards you are….oooo boy.

  15. #16 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 8:02 pm

    “he don’t like me much”

    Lies! No antipathy from this end.

  16. #17 by Jim Fiore on November 19, 2009 - 11:20 pm

    “His take on Darwin is different from most anything I have seen…”???

    What, does he think Darwin was made out of celluloid and asparagus?

    Like anyone should give a rat’s posterior about a blogger’s opinion (left, right, or nowhere) on matters of scientific theory. For the record, I don’t look to my mailman for “his take” on quantum mechanics, either. And who cares if his “stand on racial issues is very up-front”? I can say the same for Lester Maddox, you dolt. You really need to get your head out of the echo chamber and take a bite of reality. And a dictionary. Get a frigging dictionary, or at the very least, a spell-checker. At least then it would wind up taking away one level of pain when reading your posts.

    • #18 by kemibe on November 19, 2009 - 11:35 pm

      “At least then it would wind up taking away one level of pain when reading your posts”

      Ahem. “Poasts.”

  17. #19 by Jim Fiore on November 20, 2009 - 8:27 am

    “Too-shay”.

  18. #20 by Norm on November 20, 2009 - 2:24 pm

    Unless I’m missing something, Auster seems to believe that “blacks” in America constitute a definable race. However, slaves originated from all over Africa (http://wysinger.homestead.com/mapofafricadiaspora.html) and we now know that there is more genetic diversity within the African continent than among all other peoples the world over (http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/04/massive_study_of_african_genet.php).

    In other words, African Americans represent many races. So to suggest that somehow all these races suffer from a low IQ is a pretty amzing (ly stupid) assertion. You’d have to believe that somehow the genes that determine intelligence are linked to the genes that determine skin colour.

    • #21 by mgordon on November 20, 2009 - 4:52 pm

      Sure, that makes sense when you study something and then come to a conclusion. What the common wingnut does is come to a conclusion then studies the topic.

    • #22 by Jim Fiore on November 20, 2009 - 5:42 pm

      “Amazingly stupid” is an apt descriptor for Auster. I read some of his entries regarding “Darwinism” and all I can say is that he has nothing of worth to say. Basically, he doesn’t like the theory of evolution, wrongly ascribes certain social affects to it, makes ludicrous assumptions regarding it, and reaches the conclusion that it must be false because he doesn’t like the results of the mess he spewed forth. Even if all of his assumptions, false starts, and errors were correct, if the physical evidence shows the theory to be correct, one’s distaste of the logical outcomes doesn’t matter a bit. It is what it is whether you like it or not. The guy is just dead wrong on multiple levels. I simply don’t understand why anyone would hold him up as a great intellect.

      OK, his grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc. are certainly competent, but … oh wait, I forgot the target audience for that dreck. Never mind.

  19. #23 by kemibe on November 20, 2009 - 6:08 pm

    What the common wingnut does is come to a conclusion then studies mangles and ignores the topic.

    I’m almost positive this is what you meant.

%d bloggers like this: