Monday, October 26, 2020

In which the pond breaks its rule of three because this sodden day there's a feast of reptile follies ...

 


 

 

Is it finally time to abolish or privatise the ABC? The pond is just asking for a friend ... it already has the lizard Oz standing by on a daily basis to warn of the dangers of inner city left-wing 'leets, and perhaps Gaven Morris would feel more at home in reptile la la land ...

As proof, what a bumper day it was at the lizard Oz this day. Surely Monday is the very best day, when reptiles in their very best plumage do their very best to plumb new depths of satirical absurdity ...

That's why the expert in the movement of floodwaters in quarries simply had to go first, as the best of the best ... or if you will, the worst of the worst ...






 

Say what? The pond had nothing to say, no interruptions between gobbets, no comments? 

But wait, what's there to say about a man so fucked in the head, so delusional that he imagines he's more than a wart on the world of science, a gnat of mindless sociological stupidity, so keen to prove what an adept scientist he is that he attempted to chart the movement of flood waters in quarries, and ended up with a massive defamation finding against him ... evidence that the Caterist long ago slipped deep into the swamp, polarised and tainted by his own prejudice and stupidity ... 

Confronted with more evidence, why bother to comment? Why not just present the stripped down, pandemic, home studio version, the kind that's been turning up lately on NPR's Tiny Desk concerts ... maybe we could call it the Tiny Caterist Mind show ...

The pond simply couldn't indulge in comments,  because this day it had a plethora of reptiles pleading for attention, and none more impressive than jolly Joe, who in his short time at the paper, has proved most adept at commanding a cult following ... and indeed, the reptiles have recognised this by ignoring the Caterist and bestowing on jolly Joe a cult illustration ...

 



 

Sure, it's not by the cult master himself, but still, it being a second rate cult illustration says a lot about jolly Joe and his obsession with Mary. There's no doubt something about Mary that compels jolly Joe ... though whether it's semen in the hair, as in that shocking film, or simply her ability to make Joe sound fabulously condescending is something the pond is still trying to work out ...

 



Who but Joe could scribble "personality politics is vanity politics" just after brooding about how Kristen Welker did the Donald down? Only a man capable of delivering a masterpiece budget in 2014, explaining why to this point he's apparently failed to notice the Donald's bronzed, rancid orange appearance, his peculiar hair, his exceptional narcissist vanity, and his rabid populism, full of personal attacks and abuse ...

No, it can't be the semen in Mary's fictional hair ...



 

Meanwhile, right now, in the United States there is a pandemic going down, killing many more Americans than lost their lives in fighting in Vietnam, and yet by reading jolly Joe, the pond can thankfully escape the bad news, and head back to 1968 ... even if it's already done that last week with Sorkin's movie ...

 


 

 

Well it wouldn't be a reptile outing without giving the Donald a chance. Take note, Gaven Morris this is how you should be doing it, if you want to appeal to the redneck vote, and stay in harmony with SloMo, and sell your soul for shekels ...

And now for a change of pace ...

 



 

What's so appealing about this piece, Gaven, and why should the ABC be featuring more of this sort of thing? Well the Oreo was once a feminist, but now she's a reformed, recovering feminist, perhaps with a desire to become a handmaiden, certainly with a desire to acknowledge that the patriarchy is right and just and proper in its suggestion that men should rule over their wives ...

 



 

Might not the Oreo be in a position, as a reformed, recovering feminist, to serve as handmaiden or complimentary woman to a Sydney Anglican? Why it's a wondrous thing to behold, Gaven, please take note, please observe how we're miles from inner city 'leets (never mind where the Sydney Anglicans have their cathedral), and as joyous as observing the Caterist on science, or jolly Joe on Mary and her strangely bouffant 1960s, nicely gelled and sprayed with something hair ...

 


 

The pond is extremely pleased at the Oreo's desire to become a handmaiden and perhaps join a Catholic cult ...

In the secretive world of the ultra-conservative People of Praise, large belt buckles are considered a sin.
'They draw attention to the crotch region,' a former member told DailMail.com exclusively.
Perfume and cologne are banned for similar reasons. 'That would indicate you are trying to tempt someone with pheromones,' the ex-member explained.
And single women are told they can only wear plain white cotton panties. 'Certainly, no thongs —not that anyone is going to see their underwear anyway,' the member, who asked for anonymity, said.
These are just some of the rules that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was raised under as a member of People of Praise, a mainly Roman Catholic faith group that boasts fewer than 1,700 adult members.

No, the pond isn't going to link to the Daily Snail, but could someone please check the size of any belt buckle the Oreo might be seen wearing, and please avoid the pheromones which might help explain the pond's infatuation with the Oreo ...



 

Excellent stuff, though the pond is sad to report that the Donald is in to discrimination, and doesn't much like Oreos anymore ...

 


 

 

Sad ... and yet he once devoured Oreos, just like the pond.

Speaking of breaking rules, the pond couldn't resist scoffing down one more reptile this most excellent day.

The pond's usual rule is no more than two reptiles, and perhaps a bonus, but golly, it's cold and bleak in the pond's inner-city 'leet haven - not that the pond expects the ABC to report such pathetic news - so what better than to gorge, pig out, and swallow a generous serve of the Major Mitchell (yes, the pond cooked the stone and the parrot and after five hours in the pot, threw away the Major and served the stone) ...





The pond loves this story, what with Rudy and Borat and the shenanigans and malarkey that went on within the New York Post ...



Most of all the pond loves the notion of a legally blind computer repair shop owner fiddling with hard drives ... even more than Rudy fiddling with his pants ... (here, if you want to waste a NY Times hit and dive into murky waters)



 

It goes without saying that the Major is an expert in this sort of investigation. Why, he's still looking for that Order of Lenin medal he fitted on to Manning Clark ...




Yes, it takes the pond back to the very best halcyon days of the Major at his finest ...

 


 

 

There's more at Crikey here, and it seems to be outside the paywall,  and that's why the pond had to go cartoon free this day ... because the Major was in ripper form, and there's little doubt that Twitter and the like would have had some doubts about the Major doing down Clark, and what an outrage that would have been ...




 

You see Gaven? We already have the Major to hand to rant about journalists of the left? What need of the ABC?

If we want alternative news sources, we can just enjoy a Kudelka here ...

 

 



We have the Major for the filler rant to stick between the cartoons... even if he must eventually run out of steam with his blather about the left media ...




 

Oh fucketty fuck, it's just too hilarious ... a Murdochian of the Major kind talking about good journalism and the drift from impartiality, and notions of impartiality and balance. 

It's too rich, in this world of Fox News ...

And so to the pond catching up with the immortal Rowe, with more Rowe here, and that's more than enough reptile nonsense for a sodden day ... sure, the reptiles might have spent a little of their faux outrage on all those stories, but remember, we have Gaven and his team to do that ... don't we? Or is it, did we?


 


 



10 comments:

  1. Nick the Cater quotes a scientist, Stuart Ritchie (well, psychology is nearly a science, isn't it ?): "In an age of 'churnalism', where time-pressed journalists often simply repeat the contents of press releases, scientists have a great deal pf power - and a great deal of responsibility."

    Now just referencing a bit of psychology, namely the behavioural practise of 'attribution', we can see that Cater subconsciously gets it: he knows that he is just a 'press release' copier with no input at all; but we all know that what he is really doing is the behavioural practice of 'projecting', that is denying his own grievous failings by believing they only afflict other people. A neat little tactic that could probably make a point 9 for DW's list of yesterday: practised facility in attribution and projection.

    As to scientists having "a great deal of power", ask Dr Fauci about that. But Knock Nick did produce one small thought: "Rarely were other possible factors considered; that both poor health and diet might be determined by cultural or socioeconomic circumstances, for example."

    Aha, the problems of high decoupling as shown in science. Now don't ever say I didn't tell you.

    But finally, we get to the core reptilian delusion: "COVID-19 could have been science's moment of salvation, an opportunity to put aside past mistakes and join forces in the interest of mankind, inspire a generation of students to take up science courses and fight for a noble cause."

    Well, apart from the fact that, as Cater and Ritchie have shown repeatedly, "science" does continually re-examine itself and correct its errors, what could we possibly get from science that Trump hasn't already Trumped: he will "listen to the scientists" Trump says of Biden, and according to Cater, that's a totally damning charge of which Biden is guilty. So, listen only to Trump and all will be well - there will be no science in Great America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... maybe we could call it the Tiny Caterist Mind show ..."

      Oh, tres bon, DP, that's him all right.

      Delete
    2. Well, the Cater has offered a 'book report', at about the standard of Primary Year 4. He should get basic marks for having read sufficient of the book to eke out a report (but no proof that he had read the entire volume). Ms Thing might have given him a 5 out of 10, and a 'could do better' stamp.

      Oh, if he wants some examples of misinterpretation, he could just read what Ms Weisser puts up on 'Twitter' about a certain laptop (computer, not dance performance)

      Neat pivot by the Major - the laptop itself is dubious - my Source tells me that even several comments on his site this day are asking inconvenient questions like 'why doesn't the Post release the meta-data on the stolen files?' - so switch to - (and this is where the story really begins, as they used to say on the 'Goon Show') - those perfidious 'Big Techs', censoring, censoring, I tells ya - evidence of the utter corruption of the Biden family. Just because they think the supposed origins of the laptop seemed to need just a tad more verification.

      You can make up stories about laptops being left with blind watchmakers, it is less easy to make up columns in 'news'papers about mass media being selective in its reporting.

      Delete
    3. They keep on and on about the Bidens not stating that the emails are "fake". On the other hand, without the metadata etc etc how could anybody say ? Is Hunter's (and Joe's ?) memory so hyperthymesic that he can just certify that the emails are 'fake' ? Would such a testimony stand up in a court of law - would Amy Coney Barrett accept it as valid ?

      Though I reckon that they're just being sensible: the more they allow themselves to be drawn into a "dispute", the more that the '3000 repetitions law' gives the whole deal a false sense of 'reality'.

      And as for The Oreo: well, firstly ACB sells herself as a 'literalist originalist' (which maybe is what Ginsburg found so appealing about Scalia ?) which is clearly a total nonsense. Yes she can read the words but absolutely nothing written by human hand can possibly be interpreted 'literalistically orginalist' after several centuries have passed. In fact. not even after a couple of weeks have passed. And as for her 'literalist originalist' interpretation of matters both religious and secular, well ...

      But the main thing about Democratics boycotting the Senate committee is simple: the whole process of nominating anybody, much less a total hopeless such as ACB, is that the GOPers are being lying hypocrites, as usual. Decency and courteousness demand a boycott.

      Delete
  2. So, Mow Jo talking about "Mary": "If she doesn't vote, Trump still has a chance."

    Err, umm, so if largish numbers of people who voted for Trump last time don't vote - not that they'll vote for Biden they just won't vote at all - then somehow Trump "still has a chance" ? So Trump's vote will be down compared with 2016, and Biden's vote will be up compared with Hillary's, but nonetheless, "Trump still has a chance" ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. One reviewer of Ritchie's book (on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1FNAA19GBWSY1/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1250222699#R1FNAA19GBWSY1) writes: "The author does not provide any support for the proposition that fraud has more than a negligible impact on the overall progress of science." and "The author's discussion applies mainly to fields like nutrition where there is little prior reason to think factors like "eating more potatoes" are either good or bad for you, and there are so many confounding factors and so much measurement uncertainty that the sample sizes required for meaningful answers are impractical. I would argue that testing essentially random hypothesis on inadequate data really isn't experimental science in the first place."
    There's lots more intelligent stuff in the review, though of course most reviews are favourable (just like on IMDB).

    Surely not even Cater can be so thick as to believe "studies" that show red wine is good for you? Though I reckon he would believe that a 93 point wine is better than an 88 pointer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah: "Overall, I can't recommend this book to anyone. If you're well-read in this field, you won't find enough new to be worth the effort."

      And if you are not "well-read in this field", the author is hoping you won't be able to pick him up on his multiple failures - a stock-standard reptile strategy. Just think about 'Pure White and Deadly' and all the sadly ignorant folks who were completely taken in by Ancel Keys and the big bucks (<- both meanings) of the sugar industry. If you're interested, read the Guardian piece before reading Wikipedia:
      https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/jan/05/features11.g25
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure,_White_and_Deadly

      But really, the biggest problem with "science" is that the good old 'precise' fields (physics and astronomy, chemistry and even botany) can only take just so many scientists and find the money for their laboratories, experiments and publications. And we've already got millions of scientific PhDs out there and hundreds of thousands more each year.

      Ok, a lot of not so very good or clever or even honest people get into 'science' each year and of course, scientific validation is just impossible. So the vast majority of scientific papers just languish for a while and then disappear. Peer review, always a very dodgy thing, simply becomes impossible which is very much the state of play now.

      And frankly, I can't see any way that this state of affairs can be fixed. Just keep in mind that even with millions of scientists around, that in any given field of knowledge, the world is overwhelmingly ignorant and ever will remain so.

      Delete
    2. Oh, how fortuitous:

      One in five Australian scientists planning to leave the profession, survey shows
      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/oct/26/one-in-five-australian-scientists-planning-to-leave-survey-shows

      Delete
  4. Hi Dorothy,

    This Amy Coney Barrett person may claim to be an Originalist but she seems to have a very poor interpretation of the US Constitution as it was “understood at the time it was adopted”.

    My extensive research (thank you Wikipedia) has highlighted key problems with Barrett’s attempt to become a Supreme Court Judge.

    Nowhere in the original Constitution are the words women, females or even sex mentioned. The idea of female suffrage in the newly created United States certainly did not occur to the all male framers.

    Given that the original intent didn’t even consider that women could vote, the idea that a woman could aspire to be a Judge let alone a Supreme Court Judge would be laughable.

    Unless Ms Barrett is a total hypocrite and doesn’t believe in Originalism she should forthwith decline her nomination and return to her proper place barefoot in her husband’s kitchen.

    DiddyWrote

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kinde, kuche, kirche you reckon, DW. Yes, that's the problem with having a "constitution" (and a Bill of Rights come to that); they grow old so very fast and they need so very much transmutative interpretation. 'Originalism' just doesn't hack it, even if it is attempted to be applied honestly.

      Delete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.