Original text is in black, and my opinion and corrections are in italic and red.
The original text can be found here
Fake SaganOwns Straightd0pe - Brett Keane Review The title here is just wrong. First notice the name of Fakesagan is incorrect. Also the poor grammar makes it look like it is a "Fakesagan owns straightd0pe Brett Keane review". A better suggestion would be "a Brett Keane Review".
Captainoawesome was the first user to start you tube drama with me. I am unaware if Captainoawesome's name was spelled like that. From the info I have been able to get, the correct name was "CapnOAwesome". And it is spelled YouTube. And I have no idea if Cap was the first to start drama with Brett.
He was convinced I should never have shown my face on you tube because he believed I was an ugly old man.
This is just poor English. Has he lost this conviction? And again with this "you tube".
Shortly after the deceased Boringdispatcher began talking trash as well. Dead people can talk? That is kinda scary. But citation needed.
When TheAmazingAtheist came on to you tube months after I did his friend hardcase followed. You did Hardcase? And I thought this was gay. You should really try punctuation. After all, you are a renowned "arthur".
Before these chararcters came onto the scene the Atheist community was content with me. This is a lie. And atheist should not be capitalized.
Hardcase and TJ seemed to like me as well but it was clear they wanted to make a name for themselves. I want to play this over and over. Who is TJ? Unless your readers are well aware of TheAmazingAtheist, they would have no clue who you are talking about. Introduce your characters, not just mention their names, in hope some will recognize them.
Wasn't long before Hard made a 17 minute ad hom video disrespecting me in public. Do you have any evidence of this alleged video? And are you even aware of the meaning of an ad hom?
He received a lot of hate for this. From who? Not just postulate, but provide evidence.
We had a back and forth but ended up working issues out. Yeah, now he just thinks you are not worthy of a debate.
Hardcase became Fake Sagan later and primarily focused on drama. Use only one synonym/nickname for Fakesagan. You jumping around in the names in this little span of text, gets quite confusing and almost unreadable.
People thought it was interesting. Unlike your boring dribble.
Humans love drama because let's face it. Use the correction punctuation, please. Not "because let's face it period". That is just poor writing.
People like to see others suffer and go through pain. Like when you made that video to TerraRising? And any factual evidence to back this up with?
Fake Sagan discovered true drama and suffering when CaptainAwesome released a video of himself having sex with the drama kings fiance. He is still named "Fakesagan". Is this the same CaptainOawesome you were refering to earlier? And it is spelled "king's" and "fiancé". And my cock was there.
Fake pretended it didn't hurt him but I knew that it did. How? Are you a psychic, besides being a timelord? And why do you refer to him as Fake?
The relationship failed and after a bout with Coughlan666 he ended up leaving for a long time. Unlike you, you mean? When you leave YouTube for all of 5 hours or 2 days.
Coughlan sent his fan boys to wreck his channel after Fake and The Amazing Atheist owned him in a drama episode. Really? Do you have any evidence of Coughlan sending his fanboys?
It resulted in Coughlan crying like a baby on video. At least Coughlan has feelings. And of course you are going to show the video, but not any of the videos to the prior statements you have made.
Fake came back and has posted few videos under the name thesmoothterrorist. Actually it is "TheSmoothTerrorist". And unless you are aware of other channels he is currently using, the correct sentence structure would be "..posted a few videos.."
TheStraightD0pe Not spelling his name correct either? Do you have a grudge against getting people's names correct?
The user came on the scene a couple years ago not willing to show his face. So he is willing to show his face now?
Attacked Fakesagan claiming he was a coward who was stupid. Claiming he was a a coward who was stupid? This is so poor English, that you would have to repeat 3rd grade. Who writes like this? And doesn't straightd0pe(abbr. SD) still hold these positions?
Strange being the fact Dopey liked to call people names while never showing his own face on camera. His own face? Like he is able to show other people's faces? Is he Nicolas Cage or John Travolta? And why do write like him "calling people names" is a thing of the past?
The Dopester enjoyed comfortably sitting back flinging shit at fake through two nasty videos. "Sitting back". Why "fake"? And was "Fakey" just an angel in this dispute?
Wasn't a surprise to see that Coughlan was subbed to him and favorite's every nasty video. Coughlan is still subbed to him.
HappyCabbie subbed to S.D. as well. Stalking him a bit I guess?
Happy has a long history of having his subs destroy and demoralize users on you tube. Do you have any evidence of this? And YouTube. YouTube!
Gimmieabrain man was the first to advertise the cowardly troll to help him get started with subs and views. Clever. Except it would work better if you called him "Gimmeabrainman", you know.. Much closer to his actual accountname. This was also where you found your little "Edward" snippet.
I found it interesting that you tube partners who were getting paid by google assisted a user like this. Commas, they're cool. YouTube! Google! But I thought you were a partner, Brett.
Might I add Gimmie as well as happycabbie seem to be unflaggable which suggest they may work for you tube. How do you know they are unflaggable? No, seriously, how the hell do you know?
Which if it is discovered that they are...You Tube can be held responsible for a lot of dirty assaults on it's members. "Which if it is discovered".. I have no idea what this means. And how can YouTube "be held responsible"?
Straightdump then made a video attacking Cody Weber who is known as Saturnninefilms. Actually he is known as "Saturninefilms". And again with the altering of names.
The guy who use to direct Amazing Atheist videos. Use what? And now you call him Amazing Atheist. When you refered to him as TJ earlier. Why?
Made comments such as Cody is a shitty person who does not father his daughter properly. He never called him a "shitty person".
Moaned and groaned on about how Cody ask for money from his audience. Didn't you just attack people for wanting money from the audience? Oh well..
Dopey's big game has always been the e-begging game. Where yours is the scam-artist game.
Bitching about how users ask for money. Nope. He doesn't like when people lying about what they are going to spend the money on. For instance saying you have to pay rent, but instead decides to buy an Xbox360
But all the while he signed up to you tube corporation to be paid for his troll videos. YouTube! And that is not the same.
He also never went after friends for e-begging. Whom of his friends have been ebegging and lying about what the money went to?
So now d0pe was getting rewarded and paid by you tube to harass big you tubers. Define "big". YouTube! YouTubers! Like when you monetized your videos "exposing" various YouTube users?
Even made a video bragging about it. At least he wasn't confused. And then decided to quit, to return.
Wasn't long before he began making videos attacking me. And just to be clear here. He wasn't a partner when he first "attacked" you. And you filed a DMCA against him. And that is how I came to know straightd0pe, and by proxy; you.
My looks, e-begging, and other personal crap. Yes, he went after your e-begging. But you have done all the same to other users.
He stole all the troll videos that were already made about me and compiled them. All of them? That is quite a feat.
He then proceeded to narrate over them. Or just show them? And then show your videos, contradicting each other.
A lot of trolls support the user most likely because he convinced them he must lie and attack people because you tube needs policing. Comma comma chameleon. I thought you and J-Dub were the police. You know constantly posting the guidelines. I give up on the "you tube" thing.
I ended up going on to blog tv to deal with him. After you tried to weasel out of it.
He refused to talk one on one. Odd, you were the one having his spouse commenting. SD didn't bring anyone. Except for "text-only" people.
He wanted his friends to assist him. No. He did not want that. He wanted everybody to see you fall flat on your face.
Bombarding me with stupid questions about how I knew his name. This had been answered many times. And never in the same way. First you found it through Google searching. Then you heard Gimmeabreakman say the name "Edward", when your lackey J-Dub or yourself edited a video, to make it seem like it was said in the same sentence, as he refered to straightd0pe. It was blatant dishonesty.
His main contention was some reviews on my books. Which you obviously wrote yourself. Nobody could ever enjoy your books.
These books had been written several years ago and just a few years ago published through vanity press.
And this is where you wrote the "reviews".
It was just a boring blog tv. I don't know. I was having fun. It didn't last that long. It didn't take long for you to ragequit.
What pissed me off is he clearly edited a video to give it the appearance of plagerism. Plagiarism! That is the original video, Brett. You know that. You have plagiarized so much.
When I seen him do that I knew he was a nasty person who only had intentions of hurting users. Or perhaps you didn't have a response - to the fact that you had been called out on your bullshit.
The Smoothterrorist aka Fake went after him later on blogtv and destroyed him. Not really, no. That was a boring BlogTV. For everybody. And why do you suddenly need to explain who "Fake" is? You have established the connection between the two nicks prior, so it is just poor writing.
Showing straightd0pe to be nothing more than a cowardly hypocrite who defends e-begging if it's his friends. And you will backstab all of your friends.
Generally I have to say, if this was handed in as an essay, it would have recieved a big F. The language is between poor and incomprehensible. The timeline is all over the place, and there is no narrative. There is very little on the actual topic of the title. Only two sentences were dedicated to this.
Don't read the post. It is horrible.
Saturday 12 November 2011
Wednesday 13 July 2011
A guy and a girl gets into an elevator..
And the guy asks the female if she would like to come to his place for a cup of coffee.. Sorry this is not the start of a dirty joke. But instead the newest drama on the atheist-youtube-internets. Where skepchick aka Rebecca Watson had the experience of sharing an elevator with a guy, who asked if she would like to have a cup of coffee, and she rejected, and then made a video about the incident, proclaiming she had been sexualised. That is the story as objective as I possibly can make it.
Original video
Now for my own subjective opinion.
Yes, the proposal for coffee and or sex might have been in bad taste. But so what? Speaking as a male, to get some, you might have to do something that is in bad taste or akward. That is the male role, yay for equality here, because what are the chances that the woman makes the first move?
It is presumed and accepted that guys make the first move. Almost never the females. And that of course makes akward situations. This weekend me and a mate were in the town, clubbing, and guess how many females approached us. Correct; 0. We/he approached at least 3 x 2 girls, and none accepted a drink.
I have the disadvantage that I hate talking one-on-one, with anyone, especially without making any lameass jokes, which mean I don't bag that many girls, because most of the time I have to be the one proposing. I have an online dating profile (okay, I have multiple, shut up), and I think the times I have gotten a message from a girl, where she took the initiative, can be counted on one hand, where the times I have written, you need a calculator and extra toes.
So what is my point? It is fairly normal for a guy to ask a female if they should get a cup of coffee.
There is no harm in this. Now he did ask in the elevator, and Ms. Watson stated it was uncomfortable for her. Really? How do you assume he felt? You ever considered that?
He was just shot down, and now he has to ride alongside you, feeling ashamed. He was probably more embarrased than you were. He had to the job, and the set up, and it failed. Ergo he failed. How do you think he felt.. He couldn't get away either.
And how did he sexualize you, Skepchick? For fucks sake, your name contain the phrase chick. And without knowing, I can assume it doesn't refer to Jack Chick, but instead to the expression for an attractive female. So you sexualize yourself. All he did was asking for a longer discussion, maybe a private discussion, over a cup of coffee. Maybe he just wanted to boink you. That is not for us to know, but I always thought innocent until proven guilty.. but I guess not..
And you have this on your website, Rebecca.
"1) The calendar applicant’s final photo is “pin-up” in nature, and includes science-y, skeptical, geeky goodness. We’re not after overt nudity, but rather ask that it be titillatingly and tastefully used. We are after the skeptical/science/nerd/geek angle, and those photos that use both will have an advantage. This is the main category for most everyone considering applying."
Sexualizing you? GO FUCK YOURSELF.
So once again you sexualize yourself, by assuming that you cannot stand a discussion with him, but instead just strip naked. And you sexualize him, by assuming all he wanted was to touch you with his genitals. Actually by that single comment(s), he proved that there is sexism in the Atheist Community (TM). Let's assume that you had been unattractive, and he was a normal looking guy, and the same scenario unfolded.. What do you think the reaction would have been? Would he also just be looking for sex?
And you don't know anything about him, Watson. He could have been married, and just thought you were dead wrong on the issue, and might had a clumsy way of asking you to go discussing them. (4-5 beers can do this) Because not everybody likes to discuss these things in public.
A lot of people have complained one shouldn't hit on a female on an elevator, because it is an enclosed unescapable area. What complete bullshit, because you can say that about everywhere. The only difference is that the elevator is kinda small. But you can get off almost everywhere in an elevator. There are all the floors, and you can just say "Oh, I am getting of here" and then wait 20 seconds for the next elevator. No fucking problem. Next you can't hit on female in the club, because there is no escape there. Except leave, but since you paid..
Where does it end?
Yes, it might have been clumsy, but if females should bitch about every time a guy hits on them and it is akward, they would have take time off in their daily routines. God knows that is more likely to happen, than girls taking the first step. Sometimes you as a heterosexual male just don't know if the female wants you. She might play hard-to-get or she might not be interested. The difference between the two - are as small as my penis. Almost non-existent. And then what are we supposed to do as guys? Just let women do all the akwardness? So, we should almost never get laid.
Or perhaps we should only sleep with people we know fairly well. So no more one-nighters.
So is any of this worth anyone's time? Nope. Just a regular occurence. A clumsy guy asks a girl out. End of story.
But as many have suggested, what if the roles were reversed...
And now to radfems.. What are you, fucking retarded? That he should be interested in raping her? Why? Not everyone with a penis is a rapist. Far from it actually.
Secondly, it would make no sense. Oi, would you like to go my room, 38c, so we can have coffee and then I could rape you. I might not be up on my hotelmanagement, but don't you reserve your room in your name? Don't you usually pay with your creditcard? So it makes no sense, since he would have been discovered faster than finding Valdo here:
So my opinion on this summed up: If you girls don't want males to hit on you akwardly, then either start hitting on guys yourself, you know equality, or start to show some fucking interest. Or at least stop bitching about a guy showing some interest.
-Radon -single -has never been hit on in an elevator.
You know what they say about elevators.. They go up and down.. Like girls riding my penis..
----------------
Some other people's opinion on the matter:
http://felidathegeek.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-am-stuck-in-elevator-gate-help.html
DLandonCole
TheAmazingAtheist
Original video
Now for my own subjective opinion.
Yes, the proposal for coffee and or sex might have been in bad taste. But so what? Speaking as a male, to get some, you might have to do something that is in bad taste or akward. That is the male role, yay for equality here, because what are the chances that the woman makes the first move?
It is presumed and accepted that guys make the first move. Almost never the females. And that of course makes akward situations. This weekend me and a mate were in the town, clubbing, and guess how many females approached us. Correct; 0. We/he approached at least 3 x 2 girls, and none accepted a drink.
I have the disadvantage that I hate talking one-on-one, with anyone, especially without making any lameass jokes, which mean I don't bag that many girls, because most of the time I have to be the one proposing. I have an online dating profile (okay, I have multiple, shut up), and I think the times I have gotten a message from a girl, where she took the initiative, can be counted on one hand, where the times I have written, you need a calculator and extra toes.
So what is my point? It is fairly normal for a guy to ask a female if they should get a cup of coffee.
There is no harm in this. Now he did ask in the elevator, and Ms. Watson stated it was uncomfortable for her. Really? How do you assume he felt? You ever considered that?
He was just shot down, and now he has to ride alongside you, feeling ashamed. He was probably more embarrased than you were. He had to the job, and the set up, and it failed. Ergo he failed. How do you think he felt.. He couldn't get away either.
And how did he sexualize you, Skepchick? For fucks sake, your name contain the phrase chick. And without knowing, I can assume it doesn't refer to Jack Chick, but instead to the expression for an attractive female. So you sexualize yourself. All he did was asking for a longer discussion, maybe a private discussion, over a cup of coffee. Maybe he just wanted to boink you. That is not for us to know, but I always thought innocent until proven guilty.. but I guess not..
And you have this on your website, Rebecca.
"1) The calendar applicant’s final photo is “pin-up” in nature, and includes science-y, skeptical, geeky goodness. We’re not after overt nudity, but rather ask that it be titillatingly and tastefully used. We are after the skeptical/science/nerd/geek angle, and those photos that use both will have an advantage. This is the main category for most everyone considering applying."
Sexualizing you? GO FUCK YOURSELF.
So once again you sexualize yourself, by assuming that you cannot stand a discussion with him, but instead just strip naked. And you sexualize him, by assuming all he wanted was to touch you with his genitals. Actually by that single comment(s), he proved that there is sexism in the Atheist Community (TM). Let's assume that you had been unattractive, and he was a normal looking guy, and the same scenario unfolded.. What do you think the reaction would have been? Would he also just be looking for sex?
And you don't know anything about him, Watson. He could have been married, and just thought you were dead wrong on the issue, and might had a clumsy way of asking you to go discussing them. (4-5 beers can do this) Because not everybody likes to discuss these things in public.
A lot of people have complained one shouldn't hit on a female on an elevator, because it is an enclosed unescapable area. What complete bullshit, because you can say that about everywhere. The only difference is that the elevator is kinda small. But you can get off almost everywhere in an elevator. There are all the floors, and you can just say "Oh, I am getting of here" and then wait 20 seconds for the next elevator. No fucking problem. Next you can't hit on female in the club, because there is no escape there. Except leave, but since you paid..
Where does it end?
Yes, it might have been clumsy, but if females should bitch about every time a guy hits on them and it is akward, they would have take time off in their daily routines. God knows that is more likely to happen, than girls taking the first step. Sometimes you as a heterosexual male just don't know if the female wants you. She might play hard-to-get or she might not be interested. The difference between the two - are as small as my penis. Almost non-existent. And then what are we supposed to do as guys? Just let women do all the akwardness? So, we should almost never get laid.
Or perhaps we should only sleep with people we know fairly well. So no more one-nighters.
So is any of this worth anyone's time? Nope. Just a regular occurence. A clumsy guy asks a girl out. End of story.
But as many have suggested, what if the roles were reversed...
And now to radfems.. What are you, fucking retarded? That he should be interested in raping her? Why? Not everyone with a penis is a rapist. Far from it actually.
Secondly, it would make no sense. Oi, would you like to go my room, 38c, so we can have coffee and then I could rape you. I might not be up on my hotelmanagement, but don't you reserve your room in your name? Don't you usually pay with your creditcard? So it makes no sense, since he would have been discovered faster than finding Valdo here:
So my opinion on this summed up: If you girls don't want males to hit on you akwardly, then either start hitting on guys yourself, you know equality, or start to show some fucking interest. Or at least stop bitching about a guy showing some interest.
-Radon -single -has never been hit on in an elevator.
You know what they say about elevators.. They go up and down.. Like girls riding my penis..
----------------
Some other people's opinion on the matter:
http://felidathegeek.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-am-stuck-in-elevator-gate-help.html
DLandonCole
TheAmazingAtheist
Monday 4 July 2011
Is Geert Wilders far-right?
At least he is far-from-right. Now with that extremely poor joke out of the way, let's get to the business.
Pat Condell (from YouTube) made a video about BBC and in it he complained about BBC being liberal, and alike, because they were calling Geert Wilders, the dutch MP for far-right.
In an interview with RNW, Radio Netherlands WorldWide, Wilders proclaimed his newfounded party, Party for Freedom, (Which has nothing to do with Beastie Boys) were more right than his former party VVD. "Tensions immediately developed within the party, as Wilders found himself to be to the right of most members [of VVD], and challenged the party line in his public statements"
The original of this statement is no more.
This and not allowing Turkey into the EU led Wilders to create his own party.
Even thou André Krouwel put Wilders' party, PVV, onto the center of the map
here
Hh
, if we are to believe Wilders himself, he should be right of VVD. Which is, in fact, very right wing.
So yes, Geert Wilders is far-right. And especially on the issue which he is known for, he is extremely right-winged. When it comes to immigration, he is far-right. There might be other issues where he is not that far-right.
And actually Pat's accusation of BBC being liberal, reminds me of an old saying here in the Danish mediabusiness. It was that all the mediaoutlets voted for Radical Left (the party), and in order to be something big in there, you also had to vote B..
Of course it was not true. Even thou it would explain why I am still looking for an apprenticeship..
Pat Condell (from YouTube) made a video about BBC and in it he complained about BBC being liberal, and alike, because they were calling Geert Wilders, the dutch MP for far-right.
In an interview with RNW, Radio Netherlands WorldWide, Wilders proclaimed his newfounded party, Party for Freedom, (Which has nothing to do with Beastie Boys) were more right than his former party VVD. "Tensions immediately developed within the party, as Wilders found himself to be to the right of most members [of VVD], and challenged the party line in his public statements"
The original of this statement is no more.
This and not allowing Turkey into the EU led Wilders to create his own party.
Even thou André Krouwel put Wilders' party, PVV, onto the center of the map
here
Hh
, if we are to believe Wilders himself, he should be right of VVD. Which is, in fact, very right wing.
So yes, Geert Wilders is far-right. And especially on the issue which he is known for, he is extremely right-winged. When it comes to immigration, he is far-right. There might be other issues where he is not that far-right.
And actually Pat's accusation of BBC being liberal, reminds me of an old saying here in the Danish mediabusiness. It was that all the mediaoutlets voted for Radical Left (the party), and in order to be something big in there, you also had to vote B..
Of course it was not true. Even thou it would explain why I am still looking for an apprenticeship..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)