Digg | del.icio.us | StumbleUpon | Reddit | Yahoo! | My favourites
October 17, 2010 3:54 PM | Posted by randy: | Reply
there's a lot of good manson vids on youtube. i've spent an hour or two looking over them. what a crazy bastard!
October 17, 2010 4:14 PM | Posted by popo: | Reply
Tired of his burgeoning popularity with internet trendspotters, TLP forces his audience to attempt to interpret the gestures of a convicted psychopath.
October 17, 2010 4:33 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
Gosh, that gave me shivers. The absolute terror in his eyes when he says "nobody".
October 17, 2010 4:43 PM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply
That video in particular creeps me out. That nobody could influence anyone to kill. It is not him in particular, but the cultural implications about our society that created the persons willing to do what nobody (even posturing as somebody) said.
He was born as nobody. I don't think he is just figuring this out now.
October 17, 2010 5:45 PM | Posted by CC: | Reply
Cool post. Previous commenters should listen to the whole clip again, and note the question, including the lead-up to the question. The interviewer says, in essence, you're special, and people want to know who you are. Manson replies at first with a series of overdone gestures indicating bashfulness, shyness, gleeful embarrassment. The weird thing to me is that those expressions at the very start seemed sincere, but then during his own mocking of the whole situation, he seems to sober up as it were. Who am I?, he seems to realize. Not a star, not deserving of fame, or even any curiosity. In fact, he seems to realize he's worth less than even a courteous inquiry, one where a normal, useful, decent, average citizen might reply, "Well, I'm just a regular guy...." No, his moment of clarity isn't that he's just like you and me, not special, but that he's less than that: he's nobody.
October 17, 2010 5:48 PM | Posted by popo: | Reply
Moby Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland
October 17, 2010 5:50 PM | Posted by popo: | Reply
Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory.
October 17, 2010 5:53 PM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by popo: | Reply
You're a moron. He doesn't have a "realisation". He's condescending to the reporter for asking a stupid question.
October 17, 2010 10:33 PM | Posted by GT: | Reply
I take the meaning of this post to be:
This is the one, single, moment of clarity where the narcissist sees himself as he really is. A "nobody" in that the world does not revolve around him but the clarity came too late to save the lives of his victims or to prevent him from wasting in prison.
October 18, 2010 1:53 AM | Posted, in reply to popo's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
This is the correct answer.
It's a shame TLPs readers are such retards.
October 18, 2010 1:54 AM | Posted, in reply to GT's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
TLP is not a fortune cookie.
He found a video where manson denied his egocenticism (even if only mockingly) and figured it would be good fodder for a quick post on his narcissism blog. That's it guys. No higher meaning of life lies within.
October 18, 2010 4:06 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
For a one word Apology it sure is taking his inquisitors a long time to give him the hemlock. Even if he is just mocking his own egocentric nature, the penalty would put the continuing story and narrative out of its misery until the anniversary of his execution at which point he becomes History Chanel stock footage. It might be the best thing for the guy seeing as I barely even know his story and I'm sure everyone else my generation or younger hardly even cares. He's alive for little more than a living relic of what whatever it is crazed lunatics with rhetorical prowess surrounded by mental molding clay can accomplish given enough isolation and freedom. That and barbershop blooper reels, it seems.
October 18, 2010 9:11 AM | Posted by AnAnon: | Reply
"Nobody. I'm nobody. I'm a tramp, a bum, a hobo. I'm a boxcar and a jug of wine... and a straight razor—if you get too close to me."
Or maybe Manson is just playing his usual games because "I am nobody" and making crazy faces of that kind is a pretty cliche guru schtick (Manson is no stranger to the crazy holy man schtick). He does seem to have put some concerted effort over the years into trying to minimize the reality of his story so he can revise it so that he was a successful rock star instead of a failed one who was such a fuck up as a murderer too (the murder he set up was meant to kill a music producer who refused him but he'd moved out of the house where the murders occurred quite a while before). People with NPDs, even openly sociopathic ones, put most of their energy into trying to control the narrative and impose their preferred narrative. "I am nobody" is just as likely to be intended to be a mind game as it is a realization...because, of course, the interviewer is there to interview "somebody". Manson is an attention whore like all narcissists, he's happy to be "nobody" as long as it makes him "somebody" and people keep paying attention. I'd suspect that being a grandiose "nobody" is far more appealing to Manson than being a mundane "somebody" - that's why he's always been happy to play up the crazy.
Great to see that hostile anon28 is still going strong with exactly the same strategy of trying to speak for and align his/herself with Alone (and one other commenter in this case) and rote attempts to make him/herself superior via childish insults. Does that even really work for a moment inside your head sadly hostile anonymous?
October 18, 2010 9:30 AM | Posted, in reply to AnAnon's comment, by popo: | Reply
"Does that even really work..."
Depends what you mean by that.
Who are you talking about? Nobody has identified themselves as anon28. Regardless, I agree with your post mostly.
GT's assertions, however, are plainly ridiculous.
"This is the one, single, moment of clarity where the narcissist sees himself as he really is."
That's just silly, Manson isn't going to change, he's not going to see the light and start teaching kintergarten. There is no "clarity". Manson is an exception of the highest order and considering him as a case study in narcissism would only serve to confuse the shit out of you.
There is no "clarity". Pretending to "see the light" is a very standard con-man trick. Sometimes referred to as strategic weakness. Christians think that he now deserves absolution because he has vaguely admitted some wrongdoing, which could be possibly seen as asking for forgiveness. I'm willing to bet that Manson knew exactly what he was doing and that is exactly it.
He just likes attention.
October 18, 2010 9:40 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
DAMN he creeps me out
October 18, 2010 10:06 AM | Posted, in reply to popo's comment, by AnAnon: | Reply
I tend to agree popo (all hail the confirmation bias ;-), narcissists need attention more than anything else...they need others to confirm their narrative and to have control over the narrative. Sure they prefer positive attention but negative attention is really just as good (whether you're Manson or some anonymous person claiming "I'm nobody" while behaving in a way that says "look at me, I'm somebody and I'm more in on the game and superior to you"). If we wanted to be really annoying to Manson (or anyone with a NPD), constantly showing him a narrative he didn't like (that makes him look weak, silly, stupid, needy and all the things he so disdains in others and denies in himself) and allowing him no way to manipulate that narrative would probably do it.
GT seems to be speaking more to what Alone was getting at with this post than trying to decipher Manson's words himself - and Alone does seem to be implying pretty much what GT says. Though obviously only Alone can tell us what he intended.
Manson may be infamous but he's actually a pretty good example of how someone with a NPD functions. There's the whole commune guru thing (show me one self appointed guru who doesn't have a NPD..sweatlodge anyone?) He set up the murder (but got others to do it) because of a narcissistic affront - he wanted to be a rock star and he felt that the producer who once lived in the house where the murders occurred needed to pay for not recognizing his genius and signing him. Got there, guy had moved, which was probably another affront to his narcissism, so his followers killed the people who happened to be there. Really, on some levels it was that banal.
October 18, 2010 10:13 AM | Posted by AnAnon: | Reply
Though, since Manson seems to like to think of himself as a beat poet (which really does add context to him reciting a poem about being "nobody" when asked who he is,particularly since he seems to find it insulting to be considered a hippy rather than a beat) Alone may really be building a case that the beats are responsible for our culture of narcissism. /silly theory generator off/
October 18, 2010 11:25 AM | Posted by AnAnnon: | Reply
Can't say I knew that Scientology played a role too though!
Manson established himself as a guru in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury, which, during 1967's "Summer of Love", was emerging as the signature hippie locale. Expounding a philosophy that included some of the Scientology he had studied in prison,:163–164 he soon had his first group of young followers, most of them female.:137–146 Upon a staff evaluation of Manson when he entered prison in July 1961 at the U.S. penitentiary in McNeil Island, Washington, Manson entered "Scientologist" as his religion.:143–144
And, I was wrong about Manson not knowing Melcher had moved though, apparently one of the victims had also provided enough narcissistic affront to make himself unwittingly into a trigger as well.
October 18, 2010 11:29 AM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply
Wasn't Roman Polanski, child rapist, the intended target of the Manson family murders?
As for AnAnon's pt re Alone setting the stage re the beats, Alone has a great post about one of kerouac's books.
October 18, 2010 11:33 AM | Posted, in reply to AnAnon's comment, by popo: | Reply
You seem to know quite a lot more about Manson than I do. I'm enjoying this circle-jerk but I feel I should stop it.
I would like to draw a line between Manson and the standard narcissist though. Maybe he's NPD turned up to 11 or maybe he's got other problems going on, such as psychopathy or sociopathy, which I would be prepared to assume.
Really though I think this is a trick post. Alone has made it pretty clear in previous posts that he doesn't really like his fanbase. Didn't he hit the front page of Digg or some other aggregator a few weeks back? If you're reading this you know what I'm talking about. 40+ comments to an article, >30% of which are wall of text moron tracts.
His follow-up post, if there is one, is likely to call us all morons for projecting our own shit onto Manson. I think. I've kind of stifled the comments for this post though.
October 18, 2010 12:10 PM | Posted, in reply to popo's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
popo - Manson's quite the pop star - it's hard to not know the story if you're into the history of rock and roll (or punk rock, or know who Marilyn Manson is). Serial killers were a pretty big punk rock and then pop culture trope (we now have Dexter on TV, for example, a serial killer who is more of a hero than an antihero...an "ethical" serial killer if you will). Black Flag - well Ray Pettibon who did their art really - used him for shock value. Henry Rollins (BF singer) now has his own talk show and Ray Pettibon's work now hangs in the MOMA collection. In many ways, we seem to have domesticated serial killers and mass murderers (Dexter the caring dad serial killer, the obvious romantic attraction of the black trenchcoat school mass murderer, etc).
And agreed that he is a NPD turned up to 11 (obligatory Spinal Tap reference ;-) Sociopathy is much more obvious when it's extreme and can be placed outside of the context of social acceptance - when it's "somebody" else that we're sure we're not. We accept mass murder when it's done by CEOs and, like Manson, they get others to do the actual killing.
All matter of degree and context really.
And I don't know how Alone feels about his readers in general. He did ask one to collaborate on a post or two so he obviously doesn't have disdain for all his readers. I think you may be mistaking his rather acerbic style for something it isn't (or that may be me doing the mistaking). Just because he tears down the personas people assume and the narratives the media weaves doesn't mean he doesn't also have compassion and isn't trying to help. Sometimes when the house is on fire, yelling is useful. But that could be me projecting intent upon him that's entirely inaccurate too. All we can really know is that if we're reading it, it's for us one way or the other.
Lexi - Yes. Though I was being slightly humorous about my own overly active pattern seeking abilities and have no idea if that's where Alone is going. It wouldn't be hard to drum up a case that our cultural narcissism has it's roots in the hippy era (which grew out of the beats). Though can we just blame the Beatles?
October 18, 2010 1:26 PM | Posted, in reply to popo's comment, by GT: | Reply
Fuck you too.
October 18, 2010 1:29 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by GT: | Reply
Not a fortune cookie? Were you hungry when you wrote that?
To all you knuckle heads that read my comment and dismiss it. So be it. Why you take something a lay person like myself so seriously is beyond me. I'm not a fortune cookie either but if it makes you feel superior to put down the lay public....
October 18, 2010 9:29 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
Lexi - Whether he was personally an intended target is not entirely clear, but this was about eight years before that.
October 18, 2010 9:36 PM | Posted by Zo: | Reply
What I see is—creepily—someone in love with himself. Yuck.
Can't you tell ... when someone finds themselves unrelentingly delightful? No matter what they do? And I mean, no matter what. Narcissism isn't a scale—there aren't degrees of narcissism. They are *broken.* Forever the same.
October 19, 2010 2:12 AM | Posted, in reply to AnAnon's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
"Great to see that hostile anon28 is still going strong with exactly the same strategy of trying to speak for and align his/herself with Alone (and one other commenter in this case) and rote attempts to make him/herself superior via childish insults. Does that even really work for a moment inside your head sadly hostile anonymous?"
You are fucking mentally ill.
You say things without regard for truth or reality. "AnAsshole" would be a far more accurate moniker.
I don't even know what to make of this mess of a response, other than to say I wish I were speaking with you IRL because I'm pretty sure it would be LOLzy. In what way did I try to align myself with alone, you child mind? You sound like a youngest child wavering between adulthood and dependence, jealous for validation and attention to the point where you project it onto everyone else. You're so fucking immature (what are you, nearly 50?) and the ironic thing is you project onto others all of your own worst qualities - childish, immature, dependent and needy for validation, hostile and aggressive. You're sorta pathetic and you need to move on with your life.
October 19, 2010 2:22 AM | Posted, in reply to popo's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
I would be extremely interested in evidence that alone resents his "fan" base. I would be tickled and gratified to know he finds you all repugnant for worshiping him... although I suspect it's comments like mine which are low-brow that he is most dissatisfied with. I suspect he gets a narcissistic thrill from withered old middle aged prunes like AnAnon who want his body stat. Unfortunately.
I can only dream of an e-world where anonymous psychiatrist bloggers were humble enough to resent their readership for their dogmatic obedience and worship, as opposed to resenting them for their snide low brow commenting style (of the sort I usually contribute). That's sorta one of the most ironic sentences ever typed I think... fantasizing about a fantasy.
October 19, 2010 6:06 AM | Posted by popo: | Reply
You remind me of the internet ten years ago. All anger and ridiculous speculation about my indentity. You should be well aware that I'm white, male and 18-25, just like you and just like 50% of the internet.
And could you pick a permanent name? How exactly do I know when I'm talking to you or any other Anonymous?
October 19, 2010 11:12 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by AnAnon: | Reply
hostile anon28 - Considering the overriding them of TLP's blogs, it's very interesting to watch you twist in the wind with your obsession with Alone and rather fragile ego hanging out (your hostility seems to have fallen out of your self control and is flapping about). This obsession with what Alone thinks of you (and what he thinks of you compared to other readers) comes off as pretty unhealthy. You seem strangely convinced that you're somehow special to Alone, more special than anyone else.
hostile anon28 - "although I suspect it's comments like mine which are low-brow that he is most dissatisfied with."
Comedy gold! Yes, yes, you really are the most special of all and Alone cares about what you say or do in the comment section of a blog (way more than he's interested in, oh, say the person he asked to collaborate or those he actually responds to because they raise a salient point). So far you're the only one here claiming to be special to Alone and the only one obsessed by what he thinks of you (and what he thinks of you compared to other readers/commenters). Most of the rest of us seem to be here because we're interested in the ideas that TLP writes about - apparently you're mainly interested in TLP/Alone and some imaginary relationship you believe you have with him (if Alone even is a him).
You seem very obsessed with who he may be, the status/power you believe he has over readers, and some imaginary adversarial relationship you seem to think you have with him and that you seem to base a great deal of your self identity upon (and that you act out in the comment section but seems to exist only in your own mind because you get absolutely no response or interaction from Alone).
It's very interesting observing your behavior as you so desperately (and unsuccessfully) try to get his attention. And just how concerned you are about whether he thinks about you. The only person you're fooling is yourself.
October 19, 2010 2:29 PM | Posted, in reply to AnAnon's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
You are sick in the head. I feel sorry for you, being such a miserable old woman.
October 19, 2010 3:10 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
Really? That's the best you can do? Reveal your own issues much? Poor little hostile anon28, we all get it that you think that everyone else cares as much as you do about what people say about them on the internet or in general.
October 19, 2010 3:43 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
wow, such anger...from so many people
October 19, 2010 3:52 PM | Posted by Ted: | Reply
Try not to wake the neghbours when you climax, trollie
October 19, 2010 4:16 PM | Posted by David: | Reply
Anonymous vs anonymous ... so much for discourse. This site needs a moderator ... I'm not sure how many regulars want to stick around for this kind of interaction. I'm not sure Alone even cares anymore. He's starting to resemble an internet version of the "perverse" god.
October 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Posted by inarticulate in the city: | Reply
A narcissist makes up his identity as he goes. He has no real identity, or he can't settle for the identity he has. Hence, he's nobody.
October 19, 2010 7:25 PM | Posted by popo: | Reply
Some kind of system where you're forced to put in a name would be nice.
October 19, 2010 7:37 PM | Posted by Frost: | Reply
Yeah, seriously. I don't know why it's so hard to come up with some sort of a nick-hell, you can use a different one for every thread if you don't like people puzzling out too much stuff about you etc. Btw, does my memory play weird tricks on me or is "popo" German for butt? 'Pologies if it's not or if you just picked it by putting 2 syllables together or something. :P
October 20, 2010 1:53 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
Yes, it is the best I can do, you nasty fat old woman. May I ask why you keep following me around this site ad hominem in disguise as some sort of argument? I want you to leave me alone, but seeing as you refuse to do so, I'll have to resort to the sandbox with you. SO here it is back in your face, you nasty, nasty, unattractive both physically and in terms of personality, miserable old woman.
October 20, 2010 9:30 AM | Posted by AnAnon: | Reply
Anonymous - "May I ask why you keep following me around this site ad hominem in disguise as some sort of argument?"
Just treating you how you treat other commenters here. What, you find it unpleasant?
Nobody is "following" you, you're arriving here where other people also happen to come, not for you but for Alone's blog. Why are you following me and all the other readers and posters here? Why are you so obsessed by Alone and who he likes or doesn't like, and how it compares to how much attention you believe he pays to you? Most people that are here regularly seem to (judging by their behavior) be here because they're interested in what Alone has to write. That includes me. It doesn't seem to include you judging by your behavior here.
Interesting that you find your own regular behavior, which is "ad hominem in disguise as some sort of argument", so upsetting when it's done to you - that speaks to your intention if you find it upsetting to be treated a certain way but treat others that way. You obviously feel you're being victimized (or at least want others to believe that) when you're treated how you treat others. Is your intent to be predatory an to victimize others by your behavior in the comment section of this blog? Why are you getting so upset at being treated the same way you behave towards others?
As mentioned before, you behave differently and people (including me) will respond differently. Or you could just stop following everyone else here and posting "ad hominems disguised as arguments". Choose different behavior and you'll get different results.
October 20, 2010 11:36 AM | Posted by Steve: | Reply
I hope you realize you are taking some poster opinions so personally that you feel the need to reprimand her with long winded rants at any given chance, even when she is not personally insulting you.
What do you think of your behavior?
Of course you are free to do whatever you like, I just wonder if you ever analyze your own behavior
Another question: if you don't like her opinions why don't you just tell her to fuck off, or tell her she is an idiot? why this elaborate form of obsession and persecution?
October 20, 2010 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to Steve's comment, by AnAnon: | Reply
Actually I'm not taking the comments personally at all. Why would anyone? They're pretty silly and impersonal, and say more about hostile anon's values and insecurities than anyone else's.
And, really, you could just as easily be hostile anon using another identity to try to affirm the image she/he/you are trying to paint of a poor female victim (even though I'm just giving hostile anon a bit of a taste of their own medicine). Hostile anon could be your sock puppet or vice versa (or not, this is the internet). Certainly hostile anon's teen fanboy attempts at 1337 speak tend to indicate an interest in sockpuppetry and internet warz and lulz. All very encyclopedia dramatica.
I'm serving up a version of how hostile anon behaves - in my own style and with my own agenda, of course. Part of that agenda is purely selfish since it's simply a form of procrastination for me that indulges some of my own fascination with how people behave online. If hostile anon believes the way they act is okay, there's no reason for them to be getting so upset when other people behave that way towards them. It's always interesting (and highly predictable) how quickly people who behave like bullies try to claim to be victims when someone stands up to them or treats them how they treat others. Hostile anon swings between painting themselves as a poor little female victim and barfing out unoriginal and ineffectual insults that they hope will be hurtful - apparently they can't see any other role to adopt than victim or abuser (or just switch when they think it will manipulate the perspective of others).
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking opinions - do you and hostile anon think that how one behaves towards others is about whether one "likes" their opinions (which I'd take to mean "affirms my world view and constructed self image")? What is has to do with is behavior and awareness. I'm very aware of what I am doing - hostile anon either is or isn't. All hostile anon has to do to change the results they get is to change their behavior (no changing of opinions necessary).
If they're incapable of changing their behavior then perhaps they should just be honest about it instead of just vomiting what appears to be narcissistic rage all over the comment section of the blog continuously - while I enjoy irony the behavior becomes tedious.
Since I actually find value in many of Alone's blog postings, whether I agree or not about certain ideas, and also find value in many of the discussions in the comments when they're not just "fuck off you suck", I figured it was a worthy place to procrastinate in this way. Since hostile anon doesn't seem to find value in Alone's blog, and seems to want to drive people who are interested away or shut us all up, I'm willing to take them on to see whether they're (you're) merely a troll playing games or if their behavior is out of their control and a cry for help.
I could, of course, just ignore hostile anon but this is both more entertaining for me and a more engaging form of procrastination. And maybe hostile anon will think about their behavior if they're not just a troll - but I'm not holding my breath or going to pretend my behavior is more altruistic than it is.
October 20, 2010 1:12 PM | Posted, in reply to Frost's comment, by popo: | Reply
I can't remember how exactly I came up with it but it's handy so I keep using it. Nobody else uses the name online (I think!) because of the connotations associated with it. It makes some people think of shit and other people think of cops.
And AnAnon, please stop writing such long posts. It's kind of a threadkiller.
October 20, 2010 1:25 PM | Posted by Steve: | Reply
sorry ananon, your comment was too long and I didn't read it all, just skimmed here and there.
Glad to see you like Alone's blog. I do enjoy it a lot too
October 20, 2010 1:29 PM | Posted by AnAnon: | Reply
Popo - Thanks for the suggestion - not sure if I'll change length but I understand that it bothers you and will try to avoid it if conversing with you. Not sure if I agree that things should always be one liners created to avoid complexity or depth - I quite enjoy reading long posts by some people. One person's thread killer makes the thread interesting to someone else. All hail subjectivity.
I'd say that the trolling and flaming is more of a thread killer from my perspective and a total diversion from the topics Alone brings up, which is why I've taken on hostile anon (or Steve's sockpuppet or whoever they are). Well, that and I come here to procrastinate and it's boring seeing hostile anon trying to shut down interesting discussion continuously. I may return to ignoring them, or not. I do have a lot of work to put off doing.
October 20, 2010 1:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
how did you know the other anon is my sockpuppet? Well at least you don't know that all the other comments (except yours) in this and the other thread are mine, too
October 20, 2010 1:53 PM | Posted by AnAnon: | Reply
I don't "know" anything but hostile anon's encyclopedia dramatica style and behavior indicates they're likely to have a fondness for sockpuppets and sockpuppetry. Or not. Maybe hostile anon is a troll or sockpuppet, they do come off like a guy pretending to be a girl (but they may just be incredibly dependent upon male approval). Or maybe they're a real person who can't control their behavior and is really here crying out for help in the only way their NPD will allow. Or not.
Yes, it's pretty clear that you choose to stay anonymous so you can't be held responsible for your words and behavior (whether you're someone's sockpuppet or not) and to try to cause confusion. It's a not uncommon trolling tactic - not a particularly advanced one for someone who keeps trying to promote an image of themselves as 1337.
October 20, 2010 2:04 PM | Posted by AnAnon: | Reply
All kinds of things are possible online - surely someone as 1337 as you and into encylopedia dramatica style behavior knows that? Hostile anon, I'm suggesting you're possibly Steve's sockpuppet and not another anon's sockpuppet (that would be a bit pointless). Or there may be a hostile anon that's Steve's sockpuppet and another who's simply obsessed with Alone and making a cry for help - you come off pretty much the same. Or none of the above. I'm not particularly invested in who you say you are or what persona you present, I'm interested in how you behave and react, which is what reveals who you are (to some degree at least, taking into account the online effect and limited behavioral information).
October 20, 2010 2:08 PM | Posted, in reply to AnAnon's comment, by popo: | Reply
"...someone who keeps trying to promote an image of themselves as 1337."
I don't think anyone really thinks or talks like that.
Regarding long posts, if you're actually in a conversation it's best to take point one or two at a time. In my experience at least. If you toss out maybe five points at a time then a lot of it just gets lost and things don't get addressed.
Points of style, bro.
October 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Posted, in reply to popo's comment, by AnAnon: | Reply
Well, yeah, apart from fanboys who are trying to present a certain persona most of the time these days, which is why hostile anon's attempts at 1337 speak sound so fake. It could be an attempt to give a sockpuppet a distinct style, could be an old person trying to pretend to be young, who knows?
Style is really a matter of taste - I quite enjoy long posts and someone going in depth. But I appreciate you sharing your experience and preferences, and will try to take it into consideration when in an exchange with you. And, yes, I'm aware of what works best online and what doesn't but I'm more self indulgent and turn of my internal editor to a certain degree when I'm not being paid to write.
October 20, 2010 2:29 PM | Posted, in reply to AnAnon's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
Still sick in the head.
You really are scary.
Why don't you move on with your life and stop attributing motive and thoughts to various commenter here, none of whom have any interest in dealing with you at all?
October 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by AnAnon: | Reply
Oh dear little hostile anon/sockpuppet, you just keeping coming back for more - clearly you're getting something out of this or you wouldn't keep coming back. Your behavior says more than your words. Change your behavior, you'll get a different outcome. For someone who considers themselves cleverer and more insightful than other posters and even Alone you're not very good at getting the results you claim to want. I'm not attached to the outcome but I'm enjoying the game you started.
October 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Posted by popo: | Reply
Another thing I'll mention while I'm in getting stuff off my chest mode...
Why does everyone call him "Alone"?
I know that's what he calls himself, and that's his prerogative as the dude who runs shit, but doesn't it have really emo/cheesy/intimate connatations for anyone else here? Calling him TLP just feels a little bit more formal and correct here.
October 21, 2010 12:28 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
Yes, homosexuality is natural in the sense that it occurs in nature.
However, this is usually only true when animals are actually heterosexual (that is, they prefer reproductive sex) but will often engage in homosexual behavior for other reasons (lack of access to the opposite sex, or stress relief/social connections whatever). It can be said many animals are "bisexual" so to speak ;). There are some instances of homosexuality, exclusive homosexuality among animals but that is very rare.
Also, regarding the definition of "natural", I apologize for using this word incorrectly. Natural means occurring in nature, whereas I was trying to describe a condition where something occurs in nature and is biologically adaptive/productive. Many things are natural which are not biologically productive. Cats with stillborn litters are entirely natural; runts are natural. Animals born without legs are natural. All of this occurs in nature and is natural, however no one would argue these things are biologically adaptive, beneficial, and equally valid when compared to normal development.
October 21, 2010 12:52 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
sorry wrong blog entry...
October 21, 2010 8:42 AM | Posted by medsvstherapy: | Reply
Come to think of it, I have never seen Alone and Manson in the same place at the same time...
And Alone says he "works" in forensics. Yeah, right. In the kitchen.
October 21, 2010 1:36 PM | Posted, in reply to medsvstherapy's comment, by Lexi: | Reply
Medsvtherapy, ftw!!! I lol'd.
October 21, 2010 10:00 PM | Posted by Termm: | Reply
This isn't particularly contributory, but I did want to point out the large difference in the intelligence of the comments here vs. on the facebook video. Made me laugh.
October 22, 2010 12:02 PM | Posted by popo: | Reply
What chu talkin bout Termm?
October 27, 2010 6:24 AM | Posted by voice of reason: | Reply
so much verbal masturbation on this website I need to get off!
Clearly people have nothing better to do with their lives.
October 27, 2010 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to voice of reason's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
Funny how you seemed to feel the need to announce how crappy this site is and how you need to leave...
Anyway, I appreciate the morning giggle when you use the word masturbation in a sentence then announce you "need to get off!"...
October 30, 2010 1:53 PM | Posted, in reply to voice of reason's comment, by GT: | Reply
No pun intended?
November 2, 2010 2:05 AM | Posted by coach handbags: | Reply
November 9, 2010 6:22 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Voice of reason: | Reply
Im glad you enjoyed the pun.
The interesting (or "funny" as you would say) thing here is that you checked this forum when you got up in the morning (seemingly a short time after i posted) which suggests one of two things (1)you are in fact addicted to this forum and use it for verbal masturbation, or (2)actually have not much better to do in the morning when other people are out working. either way you have confirmed both points i made.
December 12, 2010 3:51 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
Who is more intelligent, Rose or Manson? Who would you rather have a beer with?
December 12, 2010 4:09 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
Who is a better career manipulator, Rose or Manson?
December 12, 2010 4:13 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
I'd say Rose. He wastes his prime time program interviewing an incarcerated powerless man instead of focusing his camera on something like...the machinations of wall street or washington d.c.
manson simply got a few people to kill a few people. then he went to jail.
December 12, 2010 4:24 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
He's right about the paycheck
December 12, 2010 4:33 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
I'd rather chug grog with TLP.
December 12, 2010 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply
December 12, 2010 5:50 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply
Y'all should read Denise Noe's The Manson Myth. It starts out like this:
"Thirty-five years after the Tate-LaBianca murders, it's time to demystify the would-be messiah that Vincent Bugliosi portrayed in the best-selling true-crime book of all time, Helter Skelter. The real Charles Manson was a semi-literate, petty criminal – car thief, check forger, pimp, drug dealer – so insecure about his ability to cope in the real world that on the day of the parole that plunged him into infamy he begged prison officials not to release him."
That is, Charlie was right: he's a nobody.
July 6, 2011 8:40 PM | Posted by anon: | Reply
This video makes me feel bad.
Remember personal info?
Receive email notification of further comments.
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
March 10, 2014 18:21 PM | Posted by Anonymous:
Search this blog
See more ››
Subscribe to this blog's entries feed [What is this?]
Movable Type Development and Hosting by
PRO IT Service
Movable Type 5.2.9
Copyright © The Last Psychiatrist.com