Everyone knows that one. It’s probably the second best known law of the Internet, close behind Godwin’s Law.
I think I have just discovered a corollary. I need a bit of help with the exact wording, though.
Just as a side note: you know those behavioral experiments that they perform with monkeys in the lab? The ones where the monkeys learn that if they press a red button they get grapes, but if they press a blue button they get an electric shock? Then they switch buttons to see how quickly the monkey learns? Or the one where if the monkey presses the yellow button he shocks himself, but if he presses the green button he shocks the monkey next door?
How long will it take the Cabin Boy to learn that the only buttons that don’t give him a shock, make him dance? And some do both?
A totem? Like a reference you can’t not make? Like ‘Hogeist?’ Or ‘Lickspittles?’ Maybe something Stephen King DIDN’T come up with to replace the trite and unoriginal ‘shit weasels?’
Well, Hoge doesn’t HAVE TO any more, because you’re a fucking punchline.
Footlongs and mayo, baby. That was all me.
I made you into a joke. Not because anyone made me. Because I COULD. Because I WANTED to.
Because it’s FUN. And all I have is FUN.
Have you ever noticed that even people who TRY to be your friend (I’m looking at you, CoulsonJason & CraigusDee) wind up wanting nothing to do with you?
I wonder why so few people buy your books? And why doesn’t anybody who actually does exchange bucks for bullshit write a positive review? Why do positive reviews ONLY come from folks who either have a stake in one or got a free copy in exchange for a review?
How about legitimate PD activists? Did you ever wonder why they don’t seem too enthusiastic about rubbing shoulders with a dump-dweller like you?
I’ll give you a hint: it’s got nothing to do with Parkinson’s Disease.
Oh, by the way, I was responsible for that little MonkeyTrollDance you did with her. I know you won’t believe it, but that’s okay. I’ll find the right time to show you sometime, and the humiliation of being thrown to the curb by a real PD activist, a real writer, a real humorist who wants nothing to do with you, will seem like nothing by comparison.
2. Tell him it will REALLY PISS OFF Paul Krendler if he blows his own brains out.
3. Stand back. Watch for spatter.
I think we can safely assume, absent an explicit denial, that Billy Buttpustule still agrees with the stuff he wrote back then. It doesn’t mean that I agree, but I guess we’ll have to see if what’s good for the buttmonkey is good for the gander.
Hmm…how to test that…might need a time machine. Whose week is it?
UPDATE 2 – WHOOPS! Memory check fail. He remembers the what but not the when.
So sorry not sorry. But we have a lovely sewing machine and some mouthwash as a parting gift.
Some of you may have noticed that my review of Animus Nocendi was taken down from Amazon after a few days. Apparently someone’s sand-filled girlyparts got even more irritated than usual and they complained about the “spiteful language.”
So I thought I’d try again.
I had written a review of this book previously, but it was apparently censored for “spiteful” language. Call me silly, but I think if a writer can’t take a little criticism without wetting himself, he might be in the wrong line of work. But anyway, let’s take another look.
A very, very high percentage of this work is comprised of public domain court documents and “borrowed” blog posts which have been sufficiently butchered by the author that they conform to the Fair Use Doctrine, if only just. The only original content in this book is a few paragraphs of commentary to break up the various borrowed content, so I will confine my review to that.
The original material is not actually bad for an unedited first draft. This book is consistent with others by this author in this respect; if nothing else, his prodigious self-published output provides compelling evidence for the necessity of the editor in the writing process. An editor could provide not just correction for the spelling, grammatical and usage errors which have made it to the page; she could also improve the voice and tone here. What sounds like a very young, profane and angry writer could be smoothed out into a more a mature and adult voice, de-emphasizing the hyper-emotional style in favor of a more rational discourse.
As someone who is reasonably familiar with the facts of the cases discussed in the book (I was an unserved party in one, and an interested observer in the others), I should say that the facts of this case are rarely addressed by the author. He twists them. He perverts them. He passes off his unsupported conclusions as “facts.” He makes up a few outright falsehoods and tries to pass them off as “facts” as well, particularly in ascribing motivations to the actions of others in this little psychodrama. Conversely, he also omits several facts about himself which would greatly change the tone of the story.
That’s all right, though. That’s what hagiography is. Without a completely virtuous hero and completely evil antagonists, the whole effort is a complete failure even before it’s published.
My ever-so-Dependable little dancing monkey waltzed out to note that while my original review did irritate his sandy vagina (he didn’t deny it, so I can now assume it’s true that he has a vagina and it is filled with sand, based on his journalistic ethics, right?), he was not responsible for getting the original review taken down.
The Thinking Man’s Zombie regrets the error, while also noting that he felt the need to contact Amazon again regarding this most recent review.
A PLUPERFECT example of how he assigns false motivations to others’ actions in real life as well as in print. In his addled mind it could not possibly be true that his book simply sucks.