StumbleUpon | Superfluous's blog posts

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/2547457/

Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:32:00 -0800

I really think it's entertaining when i give a thumbs-down review of someone's stumble-page and they turn around and give my page a negative review--it's quite juvenile, unless they provide some real reason for doing so. but it rarely hapens that way as in the case of stumbler ir8-n8's review retaliation that i'm quoting below:
""...i at least don't defame people outright because of their poltical afiliations--just their actions and words... truly, the trash talking/posting/stumbling found here is pretty goddamn scary..."- Superfluous Your words..wheres your action.. "Have a nice day"- ir8-n8"

see how shallow? 'where's your action?' -- what the fuck? is he challenging me to some sort of internet cyber-fight? lol... that'd be funny, as it's sooo ridiculously stupid. but i think he's actually questioning my degree of action towards what i believe in. well guess what jackass? i'm 2 semesters away from getting my master's degree in social work, i'm a member of 3 INDEPENDENT political action networks, i volunteer at the polling place nearest my home when elections in my precinct occur, and i've done plenty more volunteer work at 4 agencies providing services to teens in my community over the past 7 years. so, i think that yes, i act--don't ever assume that since someone may be of a different political ideology that they don't back it up...

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/2320355/

Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:49:04 -0700

here's an offline mass-message i recieved from a female i know on Yahoo messenger--pretty funny stuff:

(10/16/2005 12:20:23 PM): Paul Gibson is a cheating low down unfaithful son of a bitch who doesn't have the balls to face up to the woman who he cheated but hides like a little bitch. You threw away 2 years for a quick piece of ass, you stupid fucking cunt.

now i know not to make her mad! she'll end up telling hundreds of people online what a fuckup i am... lol...

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/2253748/

Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:29:55 -0700

awww, look at the response by zappajustin at http://zappajustin.stumbleupon.com/ to my review of his page--typical prejorative rhetoric... well just read for yourself:

Thank you for the nice comments. I can always respect someone's criticism of my page, who is out to get the evil SUV owners. You know those people that want a safe vehicle for their children and something that can be used on those long evil vacations to pack luggage up(Dang rich people). And they use up all the gas in the entire world. And those SUVs are the direct result of us going to war and taking all that Iraqi oil... and it all goes back to Haliberton and Dick Cheney and Evil BUSH! Trucks may have worse gas mileage... but I don't care!! SUVs are the spawn of Satan! HA-HUH (nelson laugh)... only a liberal, only a liberal...
Oh... and before I forget, I looked "conservative" up in the dictionary and this is what it says:
Main Entry: 2conservative
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party
2 a : one who adheres to traditional methods or views b : a cautious or discreet person

I looked it up... Whats wrong with that?
Anyway, Thanks for stopping by.
------------------------------------
So, lets break this 'review' down, okay kids?
1. First off, he left this as a review of my site, which in it's context is NOT. It's a knee-jerk reaction to my criticism of his page--which I took the time to look at before writing my review. His was not, which is pretty obvious--he's just pissed that I disagreed with him.
2. I'm not 'out to get' anyone with an avatar, and I think that he says this only because he's projecting his own motivations for using the avatar he's got on his page--check it out, you'll understand perfectly.
3. He scolds me somewhat humorously that I don't want families driving these vehicles for vacations and such. What the fuck? Where did THAT come from? It's purely ridiculous as most people driving these low-mileage behemoths are doing so to make an impression of wealth and power on other people, or just to look cool. Many Americans do things like driving to get a candy bar from a gas station 3-5 blocks away instead of walking, riding a bike or taking a bus. So, no dice there either Justin, sorry... by the way, larger vehicles are by no means safer--there's about a thousand common sensical reasons backing that up; i.e. they're worse for the environment, are harder to navigate, harder for other vehicles to navigate around, and will cause much more damage when in an accident, etc.
4. As far as blaming SUVs on Cheney and Halliburton, Justin's comments are purely assumptions of what he thinks I believe. He's assuming wrongly here, as that argument is again purely ridiculous. Yet it's interesting how he's parroting the eternal spouting of bullshit he hears on far-right radio commentary shows by saying these things. But this just illustrates what far-right-wingers behave--they assume (wrongly, most often) that a big segment of the population believes something with no basis for doing so. Then they make ridiculous statements from there, which to me make them look like idiot name callers 5th graders would even find immature and baseless.
5. By saying he 'doesn't care' about low-gas-mileage trucks only illustrates the contempt for any restraint that we all should exercise, at least to some degree. Restraint equals conservation, which he obviously wants no part of.
6. The word conservation illicits the same fundamental concepts of what conservatism illicits, less of something. Why is it so tough to see that then? I'm very glad Justin knows how to use a dictionary and am amused he actually did what i'd suggested, but he missed the point. What's even funnier though is that he merely parroted what it said, which is apparent of his M.O.--take what info is given without critical thinking and regurgitate it with fervor all while keeping an elitist attitude.

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/1846618/

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:43:58 -0700

i just got this list of Stephen Wright-esque jokes that are pretty damn funny... check it out!

Puns in the Style of Steven Wright

1. Two antennas met on a roof, fell in love and got married. The ceremony wasn't much , but the reception was excellent.

2. A jumper cable walks into a bar. The bartender says , "I'll serve you, but don't start anything."

3. Two peanuts walk into a bar, and one was a salted.

4. A dyslexic man walks into a bra.

5. Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other: "Does this taste funny to you ?"

6. "Doc, I can't stop singing 'The Green Grass of Home.' " " That sounds like Tom Jones Syndrome." Is it common?" Well, "It's Not Unusal."

7. Two cows are standing next to each other in a field. Daisy says to Dolly, " I was artificially insemenated this morning." "I don't believe you, " says Dolly. "It's true, no bull!" exclaims Daisy.

8. An invisible man marries an invisible woman. The kids were nothing to look at either!

9. Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.

10. I went to buy some camouflage trousers the other day but I couldn't find any.

11. A man woke up in the hospital aftera seriousaccident. He shouted, "Doctor, doctor, I can't feelmy legs!" The doctor replied, "I know you can't - I've cut off your arms!"

12. I went to a seafood disco last week...... and pulled a mussel.

13. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh.

14. Two termites walk into a bar. One asks, "Is the bar tinder here?

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/1406615/

Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:21:34 -0700

here's a good list of Downing-street-memo-related links and quotes to further put the misleading we all experienced from our own President into perspective:

[1] The Downing Street Memo, http://www.moveon.org/r?r=741

[2] The Downing Street Memo, http://www.moveon.org/r?r=741

[3] CNN, Bush asked to explain UK War Memo May 12, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

[4] There are dozens of quotes by Bush and senior administration officials containing false claims about invasion plans and WMD's compiled by the Center for American Progress, and searchable here: http://www.claimvfact.com/

Here are just a few directly from the President and the White House official statements, made before the war and after the time of the Downing Street Memo:

* "Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq." [10/1/02]
* "Hopefully, we can do this peacefully--don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don't--it's my last choice." [11/7/02]
* "This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It's up to him to make his decision." [12/4/02]
* "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons...And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." [9/26/2002]
* "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon. [2/8/2004]

[5] CNN, "Rice makes surprise visit to Iraq" May 15, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=739

[6] New York Times, "Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports" June 8th 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=740

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/1363354/

Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:12:53 -0700

i've had alot of people comment on my avatar in e-mails and reviews (positive and negative) and i feel like i should perhaps explain what it means to me...
well, really i think it's fairly simple--historically (especially recently) ALOT of wars have been waged with at least SOME element of resources as the reward for winning each particular conflict... oil is just one of them, and is far more profitable then say, water or gold or priceless cultural artifacts. although these wars weren't/aren't started implicitly for that purpose, the element is still within the subtext... now, with that said, the next part is even easier to understand. SUVs are extremely popular and have the worst gas mileage imaginable--thus using more gas to operate, which drives up demand for gas, subsequently oil... this demand logically provides for more interest in procuring interests of making sure oil is available--meaning that countries that house that resource must be more stringently controlled. how? usually through diplomacy, but that tends to break down over time, and BOOM--ya got a war conflict... the vicious circle is complete.
oh, by the way, we're getting duped by the auto mobile industry on gas mileage itself. the M.P.G. numbers on vehicles are based on an average set way back in the 70's, when typical average speeds were slower, people drove less, people drove without as much starting/stopping, and also drove shorter distances. so basically the M.P.G. numbers you see on cars are far higher than they actually are, which means Hummers probably get at best 4 or 5 M.P.G. highway, possibly even less! since they're not telling us the truth, who really knows?...
also, why are all the hybrid electric/gas vehicles being offered nowadays only little cars? doesn't it make more sense to put that technology into vehicles that suck up more gas then ones that already are tiny and semi-gas-economical in the first place? just think on all that... doesn't make much sense, unless there's some element of truth in the concept my avatar conveys...

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/1270728/

Wed, 18 May 2005 10:17:16 -0700

here's a funny forwarded email i just got....
>Dear Dad
>
> A father passing by his son's bedroom was astonished to see the bed was nicely made and everything was picked up. Then he saw an envelope propped up prominently on the center of the bed. It was addressed, "Dad"
>
> With the worst premonition, he opened the envelope and read the letter with trembling hands:
>
>Dear Dad,
> It is with great regret and sorrow that I'm writing you. I had to elope with my new girlfriend because I wanted to avoid a scene with mom and you. I've been finding real passion with Joan and she is so nice - even with all her piercings, tattoos, and her tight Motorcycle clothes.
> But it's not only the passion dad, she's pregnant, and Joan said that we will be very happy. Even though you don't care for her as she is so much older than I, she already owns a trailer in the woods and has a stack of firewood for the whole winter.
> She wants to have many more children with me and that's now one of my dreams too. Joan taught me that marijuana doesn't really hurt anyone and we'll be growing it for us and trading it with her friends for all the Cocaine and Ecstasy we want.
> In the meantime, we'll pray that science will find a cure for AIDS so Joan can get better; she sure deserves it!!
> Don't worry Dad, I'm 15 years old now and I know how to take care of myself. Someday I'm sure we'll be back to visit so you can get to know your grandchildren.
>
>Your son, Pete
>
>PS: Dad, none of the above is true. I'm over at the neighbor's house. I just wanted to remind you that there are worse things in life than my report card that's in my desk center drawer. I love you! Call when it is safe for me to come home.

http://Superfluous.stumbleupon.com/review/1154348/

Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:35:02 -0700

hey, what can i say? i like myself at least a little bit to give it a positive review!