newprotest.org: MAYBE KNOT

MAYBE KNOT

June 11, 2008
by: jovial_cynic

image: Shoelace (cc) cdw9

I discovered, to my horror, that I've been tying my shoelaces wrong my entire life. Not wrong in a subjective kind of way, where it's just a matter of personal opinion, but in a this-is-not-how-you-are-supposed-to-do-it kind of way.

The square knot is about the simplest way to tie a knot made from two ends of string. You do the whole over/under thing, and then you do it again in reverse. Voila, you have a square knot. You could, if you wanted, switch which you did first, which would still result in a square knot; the key is to make the crossovers opposite one another.

But if you do the second crossover the same, you get what's called a "granny knot." Why grannies get such a bad name, I don't know, but the granny knot is absolutely worthless. It comes undone when you want it to stay secured it and during the times when you actually want to undo it, it mysteriously stays bound up, unwilling to budge. I don't understand it. It's just horrible.

Tying your shoelaces properly involves an initial cross over, and then a second crossover with a loop. You are basically tying either a square knot or a granny knot. For all of my life, I've been tying granny knots into my shoelaces, and always blamed my laces for coming undone, as though the shoe manufacturer contracted with a lousy lace company.

All this time, it turns out it was my own fault. How humbling.

COMMENTS for MAYBE KNOT


Matthew said:
Why are you wasting your time on those DINO's at the whining site?

http://elizabitch-ez.blogspot.com/

June 11, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
matthew - I think you have a difficult time acknowledging that your assertions are incorrect. I'm an obama supporter, an outspoken Christian, a male, a supporter of the patriarchy, so you'd think I'd be everything that Red hates, and I seem to be capable of carrying on a reasonable conversation with Red and company at her site. You call it a waste of time. I don't believe that it is.

You complain about the way they treat you and others who feel the way you do. And then you dedicate a bunch of time mocking them as though you're contributing something to the conversation.

You're not doing the Obama campaign any good. This is really about you and your sense of pride.

Grow up. Really.

June 11, 2008


Matthew said:
Regarding your comment at http://elizabitch-ez.blogspot.com/

Opinion noted, for what it was worth.

Hopefully Red Queen will carry on a reasonable conversation with you some time, but if you think that is what has been going on so far, you have a co-dependency problem. Carry on with that waste of time if you will. The real Clinton supporters have already thrown their support behind Obama. Surely you realize by now you are carrying on with a republican plant.
Yes? The republicans have launched these DINO pro-Clinton blogs to keep things stirred up and create the appearance of dissent within the democratic party. Red Queen and others are part of that effort.
As a side note, all my comments at the Elizabitchez blog were perfectly civil. There was NO name calling by me at any time. Any reference to myself calling names is a lie. My posts there set the factual record straight but I at NO time engaged in any of the name calling that has been described. If you do not believe me, ask Red Queen to show you screen shots of my comments. Not edited text, actual, unedited screen shots. She will not do it because it will show up the falsehoods. Go ahead and drink their neo-con kool-aid. It is all the same to me...but you ARE wasting your time.

June 11, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
I think that a person who spends the amount of time you have to putting up a site dedicated to the mockery of somebody else's site has little room to talk about codependency. And little room to talk about wasting time.

Regarding the side note, I don't care. I never read a conversation between you and Red on that site, and I'm not interested in any of it. My first encounter with you was your comment and link to the site you made in dedication to her. So from where I sit, you're the one stirring the pot here.

And really... enough with the kool-aid reference. Both sides of the political aisle are using it as a way to slander the other side, and it's boring and uncreative. I don't care if you don't agree with anything Red says. I don't agree with most of it. But I'm not interested in the petty fighting that's going on.

I managed to find myself in a position where I can engage and exchange ideas. If you find that such activity is a waste of time, I might suggest that you're the one dressed up like a neo-con.

June 11, 2008


Ken said:
So, right on... Howabout those shoelaces? Pretty cool way to keep your shoes on!
June 11, 2008


Matthew said:
And yet you continue to comment both here and at http://elizabitch-ez.blogspot.com/

What else DON'T you care about?

Anyway, the http://elizabitch-ez.blogspot.com/ was the Red Queen's idea in the first place. She edited a bunch of people's comments to turn them into what I suppose she thought was high humor...aka, cock jokes, genitalia humor and other gender related broad bushing. Super funny. Then she suggested that if we did not approve of her mature humor, we take our comments elsewhere. Which I did. Case closed. No need to drop another comment on this topic at http://elizabitch-ez.blogspot.com/ but you are welocme to comment on anything else of substance...if you have anything.

June 11, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Ken - ha! I know, huh?! It turns out that my wife has been tying them wrong all her life, too. Weird.

Matthew - I commented in both places out of courtesy. I figured it was a handy way to keep your audience and my audience in the loop. I had no clue it'd be so offensive; I'll refrain.

So... so far, you've told me I have a codependency problem, told me I'm wasting my time, insinuated that I have nothing of substance to post, and yet you've thrown out the "I'm innocent, I don't call people names" defense in regards to your comments to Red. All you've done here is advertised your own site (you've mentioned it FIVE times in your three comments on this post), complained about the site you're mocking (in all three of your comments), and pleaded innocent to criticisms about your character (2/3 of your comments so far); this is what I don't care about. And my comments are of no substance? Come on, Matthew. Unless you can strategically tie in (ZING!) the content of my shoelace post with your whining, you've got a bad case of plank-eye. Incidentally, my tie in to your post is that you're complaining about Red, and my comment addresses that.

June 11, 2008


Matthew said:
Correct.
June 11, 2008


Matthew said:
PS. For the record, I am glad you are an Obama supporter, but when you let the Limbaughian republicans at the Clinton blogs trun you into an Obama defender you hurt the campaign. Obama ran the cleanest campaign in modern history and he won fair and square. Period. He needs no defense.
June 12, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
My aim is to share my perspective, not to defend the Obama campaign. I think you're falling into an either/or trap. I'm not so interested in proving somebody wrong, or proving myself right.

The fact is, we all come to our opinions from different angles. Being able to understand a person's perspective is, in my opinion, one of the highest aims.

June 12, 2008


Matthew said:
Understanding anothers perspective is important (obviously), but it is a mistake to be such a polyanna that the neo-cons mis-information campaign steam rolls you. That sort of milque toast approach is what allowed the criminals to take over.
June 12, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Matthew - I have no clue what you're talking about anymore.
June 12, 2008


Matthew said:
Simple. Hillary Clinton supporters have made the switch to Obama. He is not their first choice...he was not mine...but just like the rest of us when their candidate dropped out they threw their support behind the democratic nominee. Of the almost 15 million Hillary supporters all but a few thousand are now supporting Obama.

The people running the Hillary blogs are almost exclusively neo-con operatives trying to stir up dissent...or at least the illusion of dissent...within he Democratic party.

These are the same tactics Karl Rove and other used to divide the party and help the Bush team obfuscate enough to steal the elections.

So trying to understand their perspective will avail you nothing except to be steam rolled the way the Democrats were before when they fell for these distractions.

I would advise you to forget about trying to engage these DINO's> They are infilterators, and even if they are part of the tiny and ever dwindling number of sulking, selfish idealogues, they are still a distraction. Energy is better spent working for our candidate.
If it amuses you to bandy words with the neo-cons by all means continue, but don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

June 12, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Matthew - while I agree that it may have been a neo-con agenda to stir up strong pro-hillary sentiment, the fact is I've blogged back and forth with Red since 2006. And once upon a time, I was actually a member of their blog author group. So for you to accuse Red of being a closet neo-con is absurd to me. It's laughable, and it makes you sound terribly foolish.
June 12, 2008


Matthew said:
"It's laughable, and it makes you sound terribly foolish."

That makes us even.

Whether Red Queen is one of the neo-con infilterators or one of the tiny, whiny, selfish, sulking DINO's matters naught. They are complicit in their efforts to damage the progressive movement.
The numbers are in, and Hillary supporters have thrown their support behind Obama. If you support the continued mis-information and smear campaigns in the name of trying to appear to be "understanding" instead of being outspoken against them, then you have signed on to the old school, dirty tricks politics of the Rovian neo-cons and the Clinton personality cult. The outcome is the same.
You seem young and inexperienced. I am done discussiong this with you. Unless you sell out any principles you might have left, you will learn in time.

June 13, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
haha... the more you write, the funnier and absurd this whole conversation gets. You're accusing me of being young and inexperienced, and you're still maintaining a parady site in response to personal attacks. This is mature? This is the voice of experience?

So, let me get this straight. You're suggesting that in order for me to be doing things correctly, I should stand arm-in-arm with you and publically decry Red's site and her opinions, in an effort to silence the voice of opposition, for the sake of the party. Furthermore, I should use your method of website mockery as a way to demonstrate how correct I am. Am I getting this right?

Are you serious? Do you realize how you sound?

Personally, I'd just as soon continue this conversation as it spirals deeper and deeper into bizarro world. I need a good dose of strangeness every now and then. It makes the world a more colorful place.

June 13, 2008


Matthew said:
Bwhahahaha! OWNED! So much for your attitude of tolerance for other perspectives. Pretty selective. I suspect I now know the basis for your "tolerance", and if I were you I would not let your wife know about your on-line activities.
{cue: jc claiming his wife knows alllll about it}

Dude, keep on "tolerating" and "understanding" the propogation of lies and smears against Obama, it really helps the campaign.

It is kind of funny that you can "tolerate" the bashing and mockery of Barack Obama from Clintonista smear sites but that is where your tolerance ends. Godd luck with that, sonny.

June 13, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
It gets better and better! I thought for sure it wouldn't get more weird. Keep it coming, Matthew. I'm loving this. And I know it'll keep coming because you've got a very strong case of the "must-have-the-last-word" syndrome. I'll keep playing along until I get bored of it, I guess.

Anyhow, my wife? My online activities? Have you actually resorted to making baseless accusations? You realize that this is slander, right?

Incidentally, I'm calling you out on your parody site because you're a hypocrite, not because I think that mocking someone is wrong. You've questioned my maturity said I was codependent, and all the while you're dedicating yourself to a parody site against someone who claimed you called them names.

And for someone who's claiming maturity, the use of the exclamatory, "OWNED!" is about the most over-the-top piece of hilarity I've encountered in a month.

June 13, 2008


Matthew said:
Ouch. Your mocking stings. I'd do anything to win your approval.
How about this...I'm really a woman...and...and...Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and his wife hates whites!!
Huh? Huh? Did I trigger your tolerance???

June 13, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Listen, Matthew. I haven't mocked you. I've been completely forward and deliberate; I'm not patronizing you. Read everything I'm saying at complete face value. I don't use sarcasm in debates, as I think it's a weak tactic.

You've come here and attacked me for even having conversations with someone you disagree with. Does that sound reasonable? Go back and read through this whole conversation and try to pinpoint who the antagonist is, and who the protagonist is.

And consider this: you resorted to slander. A baseless personal attack. And now you're applying sarcasm. Do you think you're the level-headed one here? Do you think that maybe you've been provoking me this entire time? I've simply addressed your attacks on a point-by-point basis, and rebutted your claims by exposing your behavior, hence the hypocricy label.

June 13, 2008


Matthew said:
PS. " "must-have-the-last-word" syndrome" is what everyone who launces an attack says when someone answers back.

I asked a simple question; "Why are you wasting time with the Anti-Obama movement?", nothing personal about you, and you launched into a Psych 101 attack. To use the old "must-have-the-last-word" syndrome" saw in a cop out.

June 13, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
Matthew - I think you've forgotten that this is -my- site. I'm not the one coming back each time. You are. I answer back because I have a responsibility to the content that appears here. You don't.

Anyhow, you didn't ask -that- question. You're misapplying the quotation marks. You said, "Why are you wasting your time on those DINO's at the whining site?" (emphasis mine) That's a very different question. My time isn't being spent on a "movement," which your erroneously quoted question asks. I don't care about such movements. My time is being spent with human beings, who's opinions and perspectives are as valid as yours are. And you seem content to refer to them as a "waste of time." Not the movement, mind you, but the people. Look at your question again in your first comment. You referred to human beings as a waste of time. I don't think it's ok to do that.

And I brought up the "must-have-the-last-word" syndrome because you said this:

You seem young and inexperienced. I am done discussiong this with you.

And I knew full-well that you didn't mean what you said. But to be courteous, I didn't accuse you of being unable to resist the last word until you violated your own statement.

June 13, 2008


Matthew said:
Yes, it is a waste of time to defend Barack Obama on the anti-Obama sites. You don't see yourself as part of a movement...no doubt you picture yourself as above the fray. That's fine, but when you spend your time defending Obama to members of the Clinton personality cult you are wasting it.
June 13, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
I'm not defending Obama on the anti-Obama sites. And perhaps that's why I don't feel like I'm wasting my time. I think you've mischaracterized my role on Red's site from the beginning.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that you crossed the line when you slandered me. I can dismiss everything else you've said as a matter of poor judgement or confusion or whatever, but slander is intentional and unacceptable. So unless you step up and publically retract and appologize, I'm really not interested in entertaining any further conversation with you. And in fact, if you want to comment here anymore, go back through this whole conversation and find every instance where you mischaracterized me and insulted me, list them out, and address them.

This is how adults deal with error. Fix the error or don't come back.

June 13, 2008


Matthew said:
Hold the phone, hoss. Over and over you laughingly said "keep it coming, it amuses me" and now you're acting like your feelings are hurt. Which is it? Well, I will apologize...I probaly went too far so...sorry I hit a nerve.

Anyway, supposedly you are an Obama supporter, even if you waste time defending him to people who will not change, so keep on truckin' and don't forget to vote!!

June 13, 2008


jovial_cynic said:
I said "keep it coming" once after you slandered me. I never said it again afterwards, and then I thought about it and decided that you crossed the line. My feelings weren't hurt -- I just find that unacceptable. It's wrong to do, and you should be ashamed that you'd sink to such a level.

Anyhow, I did ask you go back and address every instance where you insulted me. You didn't do that. If you want to demonstrate that you're a person of credibility, you need to go back and do that. I wasn't kidding when I said "fix the error or don't come back."

June 13, 2008


Matthew said:
Oh well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just take this as a diffeence in perspective. Luckily I know, because you have said it (if not demonstrated it), that you are the poster boy for tolerance of other peoples perspectives, so it's all good.
June 13, 2008


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 665828 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.224.78.106) will be logged.