One would think that MikeB302000 would eventually learn from his past mistakes and stop looking for trouble he cannot handle, but thankfully for those of us who continue to be amused by his childish antics, he just cannot seem to catch the drift.
Sparky’s latest idiocy on parade comes by way of a comment he left over at Mike W.‘s place, partially quoted below:
But I do think there’s a big percentage of you guys who feel psychologically inadequate and have found the answer in guns. The problem with that is those of you who do that are starting off with mental problems which if they’re serious enough cannot be corrected with weapons. That makes you, not all of you, only the ones who fit this profile, unfit to have guns and a danger to yourselves and others.
To those of you who don’t fit into this profile, why do you get so defensive and upset at it?
The core of the rest of the post started out as a comment in response to the above, but I figured it needed a little more fleshing out…
The answer to MikeB302000‘s last question is easy – it is in his second sentence:
But I do think there’s…
MikeB302000 has no facts (again).
MikeB302000 has no studies (again).
MikeB302000 has no statistics (again).
MikeB302000 has no supporting documentation (again).
MikeB302000 has nothing more than his own opinion that people’s rights should be subject to his whims and inclinations.
What Sparky does not comprehend, has never comprehended, and, I fear, will never comprehend, is that my rights, and the rights of fellow Americans like me, are not subject to his opinion, or much of anyone else’s. My rights exist whether or not governments, presidents, congressmen, governors, legislators, mayors, council members, and my fellow citizens choose to recognize and respect them or not – to be certain, some of those individuals can oppress my rights, but those rights exist regardless.
Also, bear in mind what, exactly, these rights are – the right ot protect yourself, your family, and your property. Without the ability to defend your life, what is it worth to you… or anyone else? If you are not legally permitted to keep yourself or your family alive, does the government actually respect you or the value of your life? Bear in mind the simple truth that people like MikeB302000 would very much prefer that this innocent, old, and otherwise-defenseless woman was left defenseless in the face of aggressors who intended to cause her harm – is that right?
However, now that we are talking about opinions governing other people’s lives, I think lots of people use computers to spread child pornography, and that makes you, not all of you, only the ones who fit this profile, unfit to have computers and a danger to yourselves, others, and children throughout the country and world.
Is that a good enough reason to abridge individual’s First-Amendment-protected rights? Is my opinion, even though it is supported by facts (in this case, not Sparky’s), sufficient to infringe on all American’s rights?
If no (as I have every reason to suspect MikeB302000 will answer), then why is his baseless, specious opinion sufficient to abridge Americans’ Second-Amendment-protected rights?
The facts of this situation are simple: psychological shortcomings or not, these people have committed no crimes and have not been legally judged as threats to themselves or anyone else, and thus anti-rights advocates have absolutely no basis to attempt to abridge or infringe upon their naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense. Likewise, unlike MikeB302000 and the rest of his anti-rights ilk, I oppose the oppression of rights for all law-abiding, responsible, adult human beings, and thus I have every reason to “get so defensive” when he and his fellow authoritarians attempt to overstep their bounds.
If a person cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they sure as hell cannot be trusted with gasoline, fertilizers, propane, natural gas, welding equipment, bottled oxygen, or even flour. Where are his cries, or those of his compatriots, to limit access to those dangerous materials?
Bigotry is an ugly thing, and it just gets uglier every time I come across it.
He tried to troll on my local shooting forum. Lasted about 2 days before he was banned and we hardly ever ban anyone.
One thing I’ve noticed in all my dealings with anti-gun folks, is that they tend to project their own mental processes onto us.
(One particularly truthful anti-gun person worried that they would pull out a gun and shoot someone over a traffic incident, thus they figured anyone that carried a gun would do the same.)
With that in mind, MikeB’s comments take on a whole new perspective, eh?
One thing I’ve noticed in all my dealings with anti-gun folks, is that they tend to project their own mental processes onto us.
Yes. One of my psych professors talked about a “path to acceptance” similar to the one used for grieving. Projection is Step 2 (maybe 3, have to go see if I still have those notes)… but you’re supposed to move BEYOND projection, until you begin to rationally think about a subject.
MikeB302000 shows all the signs of mental illness
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/648568.html
He should get himself fixed FIRST, then worry about the rest of the world. (which if he get his fucked up mind fixed, he’ll realize it doesn’t need his help)
Oh Dixie, I just realized my linked post actually couples very well with your statement.
Narcissism is VERY important in childhood development as it creates a sense of self-worth, self-esteem, and self-preservation, as well as a development of an id.
But of course that stage needs to end otherwise we get freakish things like MikeB302000, or on a grander scale, our own President:
http://www.thebredafallacy.com/2010/04/temper-temper.html
So definitely with this breed of anti-gun people (It isn’t all antis, as many *like myself in my anti-gun years* are simply looking at the big picture rationally, just not with full possession of the facts, and through a lens created by the anti-gun forces and their parrots in the media.) we are definitely looking at arrested mental development.
@chris – Have you all checked IPs and suchlike? I am not wholly convinced that was him – it quite possibly is, and some of the things he says matches up (especially his undying infatuation with “Lethal Logic”, but I still have a few qualms labelling your poster as Sparky.
Said poster should undoubtedly have been banned, but such is life.
@Luke – That is an amazingly common argument from the anti-rights folks… “I could never trust myself with X, so you obviously should not have it either!” Yeah, well, I am not you, bucko, so get the hell over it and move on already.
Unfortunately for us, that is yet another in a long line of opinions that they consider sufficient to abridge and infringe upon our rights with, regardless of facts, figures, or anything else to the contrary.
@Dixie – Hell, some of these folks simply cannot get past denial – denying that we have the right to self defense, denying that Heller protected that right, denying that firearms are a necessary element of exercising that right, denying that our lives are actually worth something… And you know what – that would be just peachy, if they were not so damned dead-set on forcing us to live in their delusional little worlds.
@Weer’d Beard – Well, the good news is that a diagnosis would be fairly easy to complete. The bad news is that the illness leads him ot believe that it is everyone else with the mental illness. Yeah. Because all of those other people are crazy, and he is the sane one. That must be it.
So definitely with this breed of anti-gun people (It isn’t all antis, as many *like myself in my anti-gun years* are simply looking at the big picture rationally, just not with full possession of the facts, and through a lens created by the anti-gun forces and their parrots in the media.) we are definitely looking at arrested mental development.
As much as I hate his radio show, I have to agree with one of Savage’s book titles: “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.”
Well its certainly an astute observation on behalf of Dr. Savage, but you don’t need an PhD to see the roots of it.
Gun Control, Bigger Government, Fiscal Irresponsibility, Taxing the Rich, Giving Criminals the Benefit of the Doubt, welfare statism, nanny-statism And Marxism in general.
I know dozens to hundreds of examples where those philosophies have been implemented. I can’t think of a one where they have been a success. Meanwhile these are the cornerstones of modern liberalism.
It doesn’t take many guesses what has to be going on inside a person who constantly pushes for failed ideas and programs with the stated desire of success.
Linoge, thanks for dedicating another entire post to me. I remember when you said you wouldn’t do that again because you were done wasting time on someone like me – I guess you changed your mind. People can do that, it certainly wouldn’t make someone a liar or a blowhard.
I realize the many links probably don’t go back to my site, I didn’t bother to check. That’s a little trick you must be proud of. I think you taught it to your slower brethren like Bob S.
And your first commenter sounds damn proud of having banned me after only 2 days. That kind of thing impresses me no end, the way you twist the banning and non-linking around into something compatible with freedom and rights and all your other rhetoric.
Keep up the good work. You’re an inspiration.
MikeB302000
What a lying hypocrite you are.
From your own website, I can site your words saying you don’t make personal attacks, yet he you are calling me the “slower brethren”.
So Sparky, why should anyone believe you about your stated gun control intentions when you can’t even be trusted to not to resort to personal attacks?
Do you know? Could you, perhaps, y’know, link to a specific example of me saying that? Please. I will wait.
No, but claiming people have done things that they have not makes you a liar – but, then again, that is pretty much a steady state for you, is it not?
In accordance with this webpage’s terms of use, the above original post contains no links to any webpage that “encourages, supports, endorses, or otherwise agrees with the abridgement, limitation, or infringement of basic human rights.” If you do not like that particular clause, do not visit this webpage, and instead follow the instructions included in section 4 of the TOS.
I thought you did not stoop to the level of engaging in personal attacks, and instead preferred to just and only debate the issues? I guess that makes the above comment Lie #2 for this comment thread – shall we see how high you can go in this particular conversation? Remember – your record so far is six.
Do you realize that the plurality of the pro-rights weblogs you have posted on (that I am at least aware of) have banned you? Say Uncle, Caleb, Breda, Patrick, Xavier… the list goes on, and on, and on. Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that they are somehow the problem, and everything you have ever done or said is 100% acceptable, 100% right, in 100% of the environments in which you have said it?
*sigh* Sparky, I am getting really tired of having to explain this to you in almost every single conversation we ever have.
1. You have no right to free speech on someone else’s private property. This weblog, the forums you were banned from (By the by, are you admitting that was you? Sounds like it to me.), and any weblogs you were banned from, are all bought-and-paid for by someone else’s money, and due to their property rights over their property, their word is law. If you want to freely spew forth your atrociously anti-rights, oppressive, and authoritiarian bulldren, then make up your own weblog/forum, and have at it – but, then again, you have already done the former, and you are not quite satisfied with that, and instead come a-trolling at various pro-rights weblogs. Why is that?
2. You have no right to demand anything of anyone else without agreed upon compensation. You have not reached an agreement with those you would force to link to you, thus your attempts to shame them into doing so is simply disgusting. Even discounting your atrocious attempts to force others to do your bidding against their wills, however, links on the internet have power, and it has been largely accepted that linking to something indicates the author somehow supports it, possibly indirectly, possibly minisculely, but the impressoin is still there.
Allow me to make myself perfectly clear: I do not support you. At all. You are an inveterate liar. You are a pathetic charlatan. You provide nothing to the conversation save your own specious opinion, and then somehow claim that is enough to destroy the rights of those who have committed no crime. You despicably try to chip away at people’s individual rights, and then act the fool when people call you on it. You disgust me. And I want to make that very clear to the world reading this weblog.
And you know what – you cannot force me, you cannot shame me, and you cannot induce me to change that. I know what I do is right, and I know what I do is consistent, whereas you cannot claim either.
Likewise. Folks like you do more damage to the cause of destroying individual rights than folks like me could ever hope to. Thanks for that.
Oh, but you obviously do not understand. See, he is just “changing his mind”, he is not lying. Of course, he changes his mind every five minutes when it comes to the occasionally-quite-disgusting personal attacks he and his supporters post on his webpage and other locations, and then changes it again two minutes later when it comes to the posts wherein you and the other pro-rights activists tear him a new one, and maybe, possibly, slightly say something untoward.
Convenient, no?
You guys are right, I slipped up calling Bob the “slower brethren.” But, isn’t that a far cry from some of the nasty and vile stuff you put out, all because I deserve it, I understand, but still.
Linoge, I didn’t link to the mention I made of your saying you were done with me, but anyone who’s been reading along would remember it. The reason I didn’t link to it is because unlike you, I don’t keep a file on people in order to use things against them in the future. You do that. And, when I’m writing something I just say what I think or what I remember and don’t waste time researching the source. I couldn’t care less if you believe it or not. In this case of course, you not only believe it but you remember it very well. What you do so well is call the other guy the thing that you’re guilty of, liar, hypocrite, whatever, and you do it louder and more often as a tactic to conceal your own shortcomings. You’re not the only one who does that, you’re just faster and better at it than most (sorry if I insulted all your friends with that).
Specifically cite examples of me saying anything “nasty and vile”. Provide links. Be exacting. Because, otherwise, you are making up bulldren and passing it off as fact – not exactly unusual behavior for you, but, frankly, I am getting tired of it. But that does add up to be Lie #3.
Additionally, even if I did do what you accuse me of doing, does that somehow make it right for you to decry me for doing it, and then do it yourself? That still makes you a blatant hypocrite, even if you are a dubiously apologetic one.
Really? Let us see if anyone else does, hm?
Or, you know, because it does not exist. Yeah. That is probably not the answer at all, Occam’s Razor to the contrary.
Lie #4. I keep no file. I use this magical thing called “Google”. You might have heard of it. The wierd thing is that if you feed it the right kind of search query, and use the right kinds of words and arrangements, it can return you back pretty damned near any piece of information on the internet you were looking for… assuming it exists. Which, of course, could be why you are not linking to substantiating pages for your claims. Nah. That is just too… accurate.
Damn. And that might be the first perfectly-honest thing I have ever read from you.
What if what you think is wrong?
What if you remember incorrectly?
What if your memory is not serving you properly?
What if that source you are relying on proves you wrong?
What then? What do you do? How do you handle it? How do you recover? What is your response? How do you reconcile the differences? What happens when people point out that you are wrong? How do you handle the disagreement?
Unfortunately, I already know all the answers to those questions, and none of them are particularly flattering for you.
Lie #5. I do not believe you (by the way, it is generally not a good idea to tell people what they do and do not think, especially in your position), and actually, Sparky, I remember exactly what I say, because I write what I mean, and I mean what I write, and I do my damnest to keep myself consistent in all situations… unlike you, across the board. And I categorically know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I have never said exactly that which you are accusing me of.
Your inability to produce evidence to the contrary further substantiates the point that you are nothing more than a spineless liar who makes up bullshit on the fly, and your falling-back on the “oh woe is me” tactic only further supports my observations from a few days ago.
When it comes to what I have said, and what I have not, I am the key source – if you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence to the contrary. If you do not and/or cannot, you simply are full of shit.
Lie #6. Point out where I have ever lied. Point out where I have ever played the hypocrite. My archives here are free and open for anyone to read and examine, and, in fact, there is even a friendly little “search” form in the upper-left corner of the page to assist you in your oh-so-important quest. Be exact. Be specific. Be clear.
Or be the liar you always are.
Your choice.
Well, you just tied your previous record for lies in a comment thread. Care to go for broke?
Linoge, look that the title of this post. MikeB302000 is Mentally ill, and not very bright, but he’s smart enough to log into the web and look to see who’s talking about him. He’s not having his diapers changed by a female nurse who looks like Fred Flintstone, if you know what I mean.
So what does Occam’s razor tell us about this behavior?
MikeB302000 IS cruising for a bruising.
Look, he’s admitted his drunk daddy beat the shit out of him. He’s probably one of those abuse survivors that equate abuse with love. Sad and scary, but we can’t feel pity for jerks like him when millions have experienced the same thing and turned out to be functional members of society.
So you’re simply feeding into the mentally ill psyche of a narcissist.
Personally I think its a good idea to expose this narcissistic, and dishonest behavior, but I fail to see the good at feeding the twerp’s twisted and deformed ego…
Huh. In all seriousness, the title of this post was indtended as something of a joke, however, it would appear as though my subconcious is significantly wiser and/or quicker than I have previously given it credit for. Good to know.
And speaking of knowing things, I honestly had no idea that Sparky had an abused childhood… That does not even begin to excuse his desire to force fimilar fates on other people against their wills (in fact, it almost makes it worse), but it is unfortunate.
Unfortunately, I am beginning to see that you are quite correct – we really are dealing with a mentally unstable individual, and it does appear as though everything we do, every fact we present, every argument of his we discredit, is only serving to feed his particular psychosis, whatever it may be. I had been willing to tolerate that in order to allow him to expose himself to those interested, but repeated spurious personal attacks against me without even the resemblance of evidence to support them… That kind of thing grates on me very rapidly.
And I dare say he has grated enough. His future comments will be automoderated, and none but the most amusing or eggregious will see the light of day – if he wants to behave like he has here, he can bloody well do it on his dime.
Yeah, that’s my general thoughts on him.
Totally sucks to actually ban somebody from talking on my blog, a blog where I do what I do just for the conversation and exchange of knowledge and ideas.
That being said, I found the disrespect MikeB302000 paid to my blog, and to those who enjoyed discussing the issues there was just too much to deal with.
It would be one thing if he’d spout his shit, but then respond to the follow-up comments he generates (Think Ubu52′s recent comments over at Joe’s or Robb’s)
But MikeB302000 simply says slanderous and stupid shit, then wanders off. If he DOES return, he’ll pick the lowest-hanging-fruit of a rebuttal, and address that with a thin response with no references (or simply references to his own blog which does not reference reality) and minimal logic.
He was essentially doing the blogging equivalent of walking into a crowded room, ripping a rank fart, then walking away leaving everybody else to deal with the stink, and likely standing outside with his ear to the door laughing at the groans of disgust.
So now his comments get deleted as soon as I see them, so others don’t have to concern themselves with responding to troll-bait.
snowflakesinhell.com/2010/04/24/bloombergs-gun-show-bill/#comment-62011
Looks like Sebastian is getting close. I personally think MikeB302000′s refuse cheapens any blog he micturates upon, but if somebody chooses to allow it, I might pass judgment, but I also must respect how they order their affairs.
And your first commenter sounds damn proud of having banned me after only 2 days. That kind of thing impresses me no end, the way you twist the banning and non-linking around into something compatible with freedom and rights and all your other rhetoric.
You’re doing the Internet equivalent of crashing a dinner party and calling the host an idiot, hateful, mentally retarded, and violent. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN?
And, when I’m writing something I just say what I think or what I remember and don’t waste time researching the source.
So, you admit you just make stuff up? So, you’ve taken a stance on a subject, refuse to do honest research, make stuff up, and then get angry at the people you’re making stuff up about? That is LITERALLY the definition of a bigot. (Per Webster’s– a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.)
Unfortunately, I am beginning to see that you are quite correct – we really are dealing with a mentally unstable individual…
He calls Kalifornia “the enlightened state of California, where all good trends begin” and a “civilized state, unlike Florida.” (Forrest Gump) That’s all I have to say about MikeB being crazy… (/Forrest Gump)
But MikeB302000 simply says slanderous and stupid shit, then wanders off.
Like calling me “a manipulator.” Still waiting for my apology, too.
Sparky (aka MikeB302000),
Remember these words?
Although it may not be my idea of satire or humor, I don’t criticize people for what they write on their own blogs.
Now, how many lies does that make for you?
@Weer’d Beard – In the 4.5 years I have been weblogging at this address, and the additional two other years I used another domain, MikeB302000 is the second person I have had to forcibly moderate from posting comments, and despite that low number, I feel certain he still believes that something is very much wrong with Tam, Roberta, Breda, Xavier, Say Uncle, Caleb, and me, everything he does is a-ok, and we are all just unnecessarily overreacting to his generous contributions to our conversations.
And it is not exactly like this weblog is full of bunnies and teddy bears – some of my posts have resulted in some rather heated discussions developing (re: window war, threeper insurrectionists, iPads, etc.), and yet nearly no one else has reached the point of absurd offensiveness that MikeB302000 was finally able to attain.
I guess, from a certain perspective, he can certainly be proud of that – he would, indeed, be happy with the company he is now keeping.
I was really able to tolerate his rampant disrespect, right up until he started flippantly accusing people of lying without a shred of evidence to support those specious claims, and then got abusively defensive over being questioned. If I lie, point out exactly where I lie, call me on the carpet, and get it over with (I will note this is the exact tactic I have used when handling MikeB’s unending stream of lies). However, making up honor-insulting bulldren to fill out your quota of personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with you is not going to work with me, period. Every man has his buttons – mine may be smaller than most, but they are still there.
As for Sebastian, I cannot say as though I honestly care – Sparky has not gotten offensive with him yet primarily because he tolerate’s Sparky’s drive-by feces-flinging, and treats it like it is a cute, but honest, engagement on the topics. Like you were saying about people fooling themselves as to Sparky’s usefulness, Sebastian might just be the biggest sucker of them all in that regard.
You, however, win the internets for today with your characterization of his behavior:
Indeed!
@Dixie – Why, he expected us to accept his gos-se sandwich, swallow it down with the big, heaping glass of personal attacks, and finally, after all these years, proclaim that those offensive insinuations have finally convinced us that we are wrong, and we will be headed to the nearest BATFE field office to turn over our firearms, post-haste.
What did you expect?
@Bob S. – Naughty, naughty, naughty – you must be “keeping a file” on MikeB302000 too, and Lord knows we cannot have that. Never mind that everything he has ever scribbled on the internet is available for any search engine to dig up. Never mind that he, himself, states that he argues from memory. Never mind that he spouts off comments like that with reckless abandon.
You are bringing up the past, and that is wrong, WRONG, WRONG!
What did you expect?
More of the same, actually. I do so love the guilt trippin’ Sparky is doing. (chuckle)
This guy chums up with Laci and JadeGold, and then tries to act like he’s just a really nice guy? Lemme guess, he votes Democrat, too.
[...] on well, that is differentSarah on something in the sand popular poststhe substance of things (30)cruisin' for a bruisin' (21)home-grown 1911s (17)not according to plan (13)i promise they are different (13)another one bites [...]