StumbleUpon | tisstupid's blog posts

http://tisstupid.stumbleupon.com/review/34805930/

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:02:03 -0700

The following is an archive of my previous responses to reviewers:

cwlodarczyk: I would return the kudos, but your review lacked substance. If my name fits your misunderstanding of its meaning, at least give an example so that other reviewers can be warded away from what I write. Specifically, what have I said that you fear so much that you couldn't offer a logical retort?

stevedtrm:A 911 spammer so obtuse he cannot even self publish. Instead, he has to spam review people in order to drive hate traffic to his blog. A hit is a hit I suppose... right Steve?

mcslims: Apparently you don't remember, but you were the vacuous poster that made the personal attack:

"Just because tisstupid and darkernight think like a pedophile doesn't mean everyone does.. in fact they are the only complainers. Someone should put them in the database for pedophila."

You seriously think that calling me a child molester isn't going to warrant a negative review?

MrShadowFerret: You are completely correct. Almost every review I write here is biased unless I am correcting a factual mistake and linking to a source.

I assumed that johnhicks was using a negative term for a homosexual and not calling me a bundle of sticks. One thing I have had to change with myself is using terms for homosexuals in derogatory ways to describe non-sexual situations. I think that associating negative connotations with homosexuality is unfair, and I do my best to circumvent that. I was trying to point out the absurdity of the literal meaning of calling someone that name.

Thank you for being honest with your review and helpful with the link.

uhohzombies: Would you care to elaborate on why you think I am stupid? You made a negative comment on a McCain video I had posted here, so I am guessing you disagree with my political opinion?

mikayf: "I think he made the right decision. With true love at your side you can do just about anything that you want and still be happy." At least quote me completely if you are going to quote me.:) It means simply that true love makes pretty much any situation happier.

LionessofGd: Thank you for appreciating differences in opinion and the strength of dissent.

ryan0000: Why do you hide reviews on your page? Do you fear dissent?

If you really are so concerned with my existence on Stumbleupon that you feel the need to give me a negative review, why not elaborate a bit? Why should others be warned away from me? What specifically have I said that warrants such a review?

Click here to read more of my responses to other reviewers.

You may also click here for other responses.

I have had to move my previous responses from this page due to StumbleUpon input limitations. I also lost quite a few responses to other reviews because of my own stupidity. Who would have thought a web page marked "disposable" would actually expire? :)

http://tisstupid.stumbleupon.com/review/34633243/

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:23:28 -0700

"My name is president Barack Obama of the United States of America. Now, I understand that people are feeling uncertain about healthcare reform. I mean, we're fighting two wars, in the middle of one of the worst recessions in history, and trying to raise energy prices all at the same time. Now may not seem like the right time to destroy the health care industry and inject uncertainty into the economy.

People feel anxious, partly because ever since my failed stimulus plan, everyone has become so cynical about what government can accomplish. Seriously, I am increasing the national debt faster than any president in history. I would be weary about a president forcing an unread bill through congress too if I were you.

People's attitudes are, you know, even though I don't like this devil, at least I know it. And I like that more than the devil I don't know. I mean I know the stimulus plan was the devil, and I don't want to get burnt again.

So folks are skeptical. And that is entirely legitimate because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that helped them. Again, the unbridled spending in the stimulus bill comes to mind. But my hope is, and I'm confident that when people look at the cost of doing nothing, and compare it to a cost that has not yet been quantified, they will choose the one that comes with a smile."

http://tisstupid.stumbleupon.com/review/23315359/

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:51:25 -0700

From the Drudge Report:

IRAN MISSILE TEST BIG BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO
Fri Jul 11 2008 15:18:02 ET

Many of Iran's claims related to its missile tests appears to be smoke and mirrors, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

The missiles tested did not have 2,000-kilometer range; it was an older missile that was out of production, newsroom srouces tell DRUDGE. A video showed what appeared to be many missiles being fired is actually one missile, filmed from different angles.

NYT's Bill Broad is planning to quote Pentagon officials and military insiders.

Developing...

http://tisstupid.stumbleupon.com/review/21828744/

Mon, 26 May 2008 15:29:04 -0700

This is yet another entry to serve as a holding area for responses to my reviewers. This response is a bit old but the disposable web page it was living on was about to expire.

DJNazzy:

(I was incorrect in earlier statements I made regarding the nature of the Supreme Leader of Iran's power in Iran. I stated that the Supreme Leader was not an elected position, and I was incorrect in those statements. Instead, the Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts are elected themselves by direct public vote to 8 year terms, though they have to be government approved before they can run for the office. They are supposed to meet twice a year to assess the job the Supreme Leader is doing and they have the power to remove him from office. The problem is that the Assembly of Experts never has questioned the supreme leader's decisions, nor have they asked him to report on them.)

I am not the Orientalist that you make me out to be. I have often defended Muslims of Middle Eastern origin in my reviews from stereotypes, and have stood beside them in religious arguments here. Certainly one being Middle Eastern does not make a person irrational or fundamentalist.

My characterization of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accurate, and based on actual public statements he has made regarding Israel and other western interests. He is certainly a fundamentalist, who irrationally believes that the holocaust never occurred. That irrational belief shows his innate ability to ignore factual evidence by overriding it with fundamentalist beliefs.

My argument against giving Iran nuclear weapons begins with Ahmadinejad's statements, and is buttressed by claims from the IAEA. You have yet to refute my sourced statements except to name-call, and give an empty blanket dismissal of my opinion. Claiming to be more educated and enlightened than your opponent is not a means of supporting your argument. Your education should be the tool you use to form your assertions, not the actual argument.

You claimed that statements made by Ahmadinejad did not represent Iran, and yet the president of Iran is clearly the mouthpiece of the Iranian government. I linked to the Amnesty International page that documented that dissenters in Iran face harassment, torture, and even death. (Factors that prevent a true Democracy from taking place.)

Yes, I believe that you should be concerned about enemies of western culture receiving nuclear weapons because it is also a direct threat to you and your way of life. You share the same continent as my country, and much of your national security depends on the effective application of security here.

The safety of my family and countrymen is very important to me and does indeed factor into many of my political opinions. I do not support the past U.S. practice of setting up dictatorships to support Western ideals. My statements about the Shah of Iran were to make a clear distinction between the rule of the Shah and the rule of the Ayatollah. You implied that present U.S. policy towards Iran should match 1960's U.S. policy. I gave clear reasoning as to why the policy differs now.

I appreciate the fact that your opinion of Iran's motivation for obtaining nuclear weapons differs from mine, but you have yet to give rational discourse as to why you believe what you believe. Why should we in the west dismiss threatening statements made by Ahmadinejad? Why should we dismiss evidence of Iran's nuclear program given by the IAEA?

Studying the Middle East does not require one to ignore the fundamentalist, anti-western government that rules Iran. The United States is not always the bad guy, and certainly our president has never made statements that imply a wish to carry out genocide.

http://tisstupid.stumbleupon.com/review/18777005/

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:39:47 -0700

This entry will hopefully serve as overflow for responses to my reviewers.

agent-fisher: I'm glad you felt important enough to tell me this. Aside from an ego, I also have an id and a superego as well. :)

cleverycryptic: I wouldn't call my simple responses to criticisms "flaming". When someone has a problem with how I review sites I respond to their concerns with my own comments. I make every attempt not to be rude, and to make my case with well sourced arguments.

I leave non-favorable reviews of myself visible here because I think dissent is an important part of free speech. I believe that those who read my pages have a right to know why others have disagreed with me. My judgment will not always be the most sound or reasoned, even when I think it is, which is why it is important for people like yourself to be heard.

I understand that you might not agree with everything that I say, but a better use of your thumb might be to hold the hammer that is driving the point that you want to make. If you really want to warn others about me then it would better serve them if you posted more specifically.

judolphin: I'm not sure how to take your review of me. Are you calling me a literature snob, or do you think at some point in time I refused to make fun of literature snobs when I should have? Were you referring to a specific review?

Update: I understand which page you were referring to now. I gave the page a thumbs down because I thought it did a poor job of making its point. I thought it was an ambiguous presentation, that could either lead the reader to believe that there really are hidden meanings in children's literature, or that teachers are forcing children to interpret literature based on their own personal ideology.

The worst part of the piece was that it claimed to be a 2nd grade AP reading exam, and yet it interjected adult words and concepts which ruined the parody. Artistically, the fact that it was generated by a graphics program instead of a scanned document took away from the authenticity of the artist's argument. That of course is just my opinion, but I found it useless. Fortunately, having that opinion doesn't block anyone else from reading that page. Doesn't your "Let other people enjoy it or just move on" also apply to any negative reviews you have made?