Monday, July 02, 2007

Dear Olaf: When you're right, you're right.


Back here, Olaf takes a certain umbrage with my suggestion that he should be guilty by association:

I'd like to know on what grounds you suggest I'm "part" of Richard's behaviour, let alone passively accepting it?

There is a disclaimer on LFR, put up on my recommendation, saying "any posted opinions are that of the post author or individual commenters and do not necessarily reflect the views of the group as a whole." Period.

You have no idea of my "association" with Richard, much less to imply that I am somehow 'actively' a part of planning his free time, behaviour and interpersonal internet feuds.

Olaf is, of course, correct, and the fact that Richard Evans at "Let Freedom Reign" has classlessly registered the domain name canadiancynic.net and redirected it to his own site should in no way reflect upon Olaf's maturity as Richard's co-blogger at LFR because, well, Olaf is Olaf and Richard is Richard and it would be hideously irresponsible to use the childish actions of a single individual to criticize someone else.

In other news, "Canadian Cynic" sometimes uses bad words; therefore, all liberals are a bunch of angry, moonbat leftards. But you knew that already, right?

HERE, THWAP, LET ME CLEAR THIS UP FOR YOU: In the comments section, thwap is curious:

But what's really inspired me to comment is this "notcycles" dipshit.

Who is this guy?

Simple, thwap -- it's none other than Richard Evans, who hijacked the domain name of "cycles2k.com" out from under an established blogger cycles2k.blogspot.com, and promptly redirected that domain ... guess where, because that's such a knee-slappingly, hysterical thing to do when you're accusing other people of being unable to participate in a civil discussion.

Yeah, there's some serious irony here, isn't there?

63 comments:

notcycles said...

Quit whining...

steve said...

From cynical-c:

"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth."
Lillian Hellman, The Little Foxes, 1939
US dramatist (1905 - 1984)

thwap said...

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

I like this site because I think CC has a way with words when it comes to trashing the moronic output of the Canadian right-wing.

Regarding this "Olaf" question, I'd have to agree that Mr. Olaf is pretty much tossing out any degree of respectability by co-blogging with someone who pulls such juvenille stunts as this Richard Evans fellow is apparently doing.

But what's really inspired me to comment is this "notcycles" dipshit.

Who is this guy?

What is the intention of his posting these stupid non-sequiters about "over-aged kos kids" and the miserable attempts at humour?

"Notcycles," you're making yourself look a fool with this behaviour. You're not wittily tossing barbs at the rude CC and his left-wing moonbat disciples. What you're really doing is showing that you don't really have a coherent argument against anything that's said here, so you blurt out inanities like some creepy, inbred "special" kid who the class tries really hard to ignore.

Tired of Right Wing Assholes said...

Quit whining...

By notcycles, at 2:11 PM

- - - - - - -

Always 'whining' when the left decides it's being shit on. But when the right sees the slightest bit of dissent with it's opinions and fake facts it's OMGLEFTYCONSPIRACY. What are you like 5 or something? How do you honestly expect people to react when you are deliberately fucking with them?

Lets seee... no-libs.com

I see no-libs.net, .biz, .org, .info, .us, .tv, .cc and .ws are available. Have at it, people. I'm sure redirecting them all to gay porn sites would be hillarious

Phyl said...

Yes, when someone disagrees with a right wingnut, it's "whining" or -- oh, even better! -- it's PERSECUTION.

But disagreeing with a progressive, and hijacking domain names and blog identities -- I guess that must be, oh, what Orwellian term can we come up with? I know! It's SELF-DEFENCE.

Riiiiight.

thwap said...

Re: the clarification on "notcycles."

Ah, I see.

Then he's an even bigger loser than his comments here would indicate.

That's a lot of trouble to go to, to rock the worlds of maybe a dozen online Canadian leftists.

So the guy can't muster up a decent intellectual position to save his life, and he resorts to childish pranks to compensate?

And Olaf wants to co-blog with this drooling idiot?

Have a blast Mr. Evans. Meanwhile 500,000 Iraqis are dead, 2 million homeless. Poverty is on the rise in Canada thanks to your shithead Stephen Harper Party, and the environment continues to die.

I'm pretty confident you don't have the fucking brains to come up with a sensible rejoinder.

notcycles said...

"But disagreeing with a progressive, and hijacking domain names and blog identities -- I guess that must be, oh, what Orwellian term can we come up with? I know! It's SELF-DEFENCE."

Exactly. To quote one of your fellow progressives, MWW:

"For more fun - people could also visit the Small Dead Animals 2.0 website where I take Kate's own words from her very own blog posts and satirize them to show how ridiculous they are."

MWW hijacked smalldeadanimals.com and turned it into a blogspot blog back in 2000. www.smalldeadanimals.blogspot.com

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm just playing the game by the rules she had already established.

I picked up myblahg.ca after McClelland bitched about the somena domain. I picked up the cycles2k, ti-guy and canadiancynic domains after the bitched about the somena domain.

Not once, in the past 7 years, have any of you simple twits complained to Meaghan that she was out of line for using the smalldeadanimals name. NOT ONCE!

I'll tell ya what... You leftards make Meaghan delete the "Small Dead Animals 2.0" blog (she did start this game after all) and I'll graciously transfer the domain names I own to their rightful owner...

Sound like a fair deal?

CC said...

Shorter Richard Evans: "But ... but ... but ... she did it first!"

Jesus Christ, you really are eight years old, aren't you? And feel free to keep the domain. I'll enjoy pulling it out every so often just to show the world what kind of immature, little pissant you are.

Good choice of friends you have there, Olaf. Feel free to keep hanging out with him as he drags what's left of your reputation through the sewer.

And remember, I did warn you.

notcycles said...

"Good choice of friends you have there, Olaf. Feel free to keep hanging out with him as he drags what's left of your reputation through the sewer.

And remember, I did warn you."


Once again ignoring the transgressions of the left in order to attack an innocent... Well done CC...

You're all hot and bothered to condemn me and by association, Olaf but what are you going to do about MWW's use of the "smalldeadanimals" domain?

Surely, if it's wrong for me to do it, it must be wrong for her as well. Keep in mind that she was pulling these stunts years before I ever did it.

C'mon CC, where's your denouncing of MWW for starting this adventure to begin with? Time to put up or shut up methinks...

Ti-Guy said...

Oh, go away, Evans, ya fathead.

thwap said...

Well Mr. Evans, that explains your (still juvenille) domain names shtick, but not your boring, mindless snark.

buh-bye.

notcycles said...

thai-guy; You still like little boys?

thwap; I'm not here looking for your approval.

Now, back to the topic at hand... Why is it that CC is condemning Olaf? Because he's associated with me and I committed a serious crime. I legally purchased a domain name that was being used by someone else. That's fine. CC can be outraged at me for that if he wishes. But, and this is a big BUTT (pardon the pun), we have to ask why he isn't outraged at MWW for committing the exact same "crime"?

Why isn't CC demanding that everyone remove MWW from their blogrolls? Why hasn't CC gone on a personal jihad demanding that anyone who links to MWW be removed from the blogrolls? She committed the same crime as I did she not? Why the selective outrage?

Here's my theory: CC doesn't really care about the whole domain name issue. He's using it as a means to attack a decent centrist blogger that makes a decent argument that CC can't refute...

thwap said...

i don't care why you're here. you just irritate me.

notcycles said...

"i don't care why you're here. you just irritate me."

Irritate you? You say that like it's supposed to mean something. I really don't care if you're irritated. Really, I don't.

Perhaps you can forgo your irritation for a wee bit and answer the claim. Why aren't you directing even a smidgen of outrage toward MWW?

notcycles said...

...still waiting for the outrage directed toward MWW...

thwap said...

Outrage? Hardly. MWW (whoever she is) pulled a similar stunt 7 years ago? Is that what you're saying?

I'm not up on the latest in this little internet world. Is everyone supposed to know about this?

Fine. It's a double-standard.

You're still doing nothing more than whining: "But MWW started it!!!"

And, I'm glad you love yourself enough not to be too upset by my main criticism of you, which is that your attempts at humour here have been lame, boring and irritating.

I'm not trying to reason with you. I'm just expressing an opinion. I thought your "Dude" "KOS Kid" line was daft, and everything else similarly stupid.

I think your politics are stupid, and your online presence stupid and boring.

I don't like having to endure such stupidity, so I spoke up.

Feel free to ignore me. It's not my site.

But if you insist on tossing your brain-dead bon-mots, then, CC willing, I'll complain about it.

If you're incapable of constructing anything approaching intelligent satire, perhaps you should consider taking up a new hobby.
Regardless of the double-standard

the rev. said...

"I really don't care if you're irritated"

Dick, you care enough to spend the money and time to buy domain names for the express purpose of irritating people. You care whether we are irritated. If you didn't care you wouldn't be here.

Ti-Guy said...

You really don't know who Richard Evans is, eh, Thwap? He's a total psycho. He can go for weeks asking the same stupid question.

notcycles said...

"Outrage? Hardly. MWW (whoever she is) pulled a similar stunt 7 years ago? Is that what you're saying?

I'm not up on the latest in this little internet world. Is everyone supposed to know about this?"


MWW's a well known progressive blogger. It's not that she pulled this stunt 7 years ago, it's that she's been pulling it for the past 7 years without protest from the likes of CC. Her last post on that site was late 2005 and her latest boast about the site was just today; http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rightgirl/4544049800784790562/#354415

"Fine. It's a double-standard."

Good. I'm glad we agree. Now, why aren't you taking CC to task on his lack of action in this regard?

"You're still doing nothing more than whining: "But MWW started it!!!""

I didn't whine. I merely retaliated in kind. CC whined and I simply offered a response.

"And, I'm glad you love yourself enough not to be too upset by my main criticism of you, which is that your attempts at humour here have been lame, boring and irritating."

I don't think it's a question of loving myself so much as having an understanding that you're irrelevant.

"I'm not trying to reason with you. I'm just expressing an opinion. I thought your "Dude" "KOS Kid" line was daft, and everything else similarly stupid."

I'll have a little more time tomorrow. We'll discuss that in the appropriate thread.

"think your politics are stupid, and your online presence stupid and boring.

I don't like having to endure such stupidity, so I spoke up."


so yeah, you just take that you, you stupidhead!

Seriously, you can't do any better than ad-hom attacks?

"Feel free to ignore me. It's not my site."

I don't need your permission.

"But if you insist on tossing your brain-dead bon-mots, then, CC willing, I'll complain about it."

More ad-hom's? Can't you do any better?

"If you're incapable of constructing anything approaching intelligent satire, perhaps you should consider taking up a new hobby."

and your opinion is supposed to mean what, exactly?

"Regardless of the double-standard"

And therein lies the rub... Two bloggers commit the same transgression but you're willing to let one of them slide because... Because you just don't like the other one...

notcycles said...

"Dick, you care enough to spend the money and time to buy domain names for the express purpose of irritating people. You care whether we are irritated. If you didn't care you wouldn't be here."

Actually, I bought the domains for their humor value. Thank you for validating my investment.

notcycles said...

" Ti-Guy said...

You really don't know who Richard Evans is, eh, Thwap? He's a total psycho. He can go for weeks asking the same stupid question. "


You still interested in little boys thai-guy?

Ti-Guy said...

Hey Olaf...See what we're talking about?

Anonymous said...

Hey Richard... Small Dead Animals 2.0 is simply a site where Kate's OWN remarks and actions stand alone without a herd of winged monkeys to cheerlead her for what she is doing. I know that it irritates you and Kate that you don't get to control when people actually pay attention to what you actually say and then highlight the worst of the worst for readers.

Think of Small Dead Animals as a Cliffs Notes of Kate McMillan's work. There isn't any _post_ on there that contains any remark that is not attributed to her, with citations, screen captures, times, dates when she made the remarks.

And I didn't create Small Dead Animals 2.0 since 2000. I wasn't even blogging in 2000. I created Small Dead Animals 2.0 at some point around 2004-2005.

I've not added to the site in years. But I could with all the dreck that Kate so regularly vomits out. No.. there was no need to.
Small Dead Animals 2.0 was ENOUGH.

It stands as a testament to the bigotry AND hypocricy of Kate McMillan. Everything from her defamatory libel, (accusing me of impropriety with my child on news years eve) to her being caught red-handed removing and editing comments in comments section at the Western Standard when a debate between us didn't go the way she liked....(i.e. she couldn't win the debate, so she deleted anything I had to say and then made a false post that was attributed to me, that made it seem like I was agreeing with her and apologizing to her). It contains her disgusting comments about the arthritic amputee Gladys Radek, it contains her disgusting remarks about Angolans and Africa.

You see... with all that hate - taken in drips and drabs... people don't always see Kate clearly. They give her the benefit of a doubt when she makes some disgusting weird commentary about "brown people".... and they chalk it up to her being terribly brave and "un PC"

Small Dead Animals 2.0 simply takes all those vicious, racist, bizare and sicko posts of hers and puts them all in one place where people can peruse them.

Kate doesn't debate. Kate is the master of the quick pronouncement, hissyfit and BAN, EDIT AND DELETE function.

She is credited with having some kind of great intelligence but in actual fact, if you force her to actually engage in a real discussion where she can't moderate the terms of the debate, where she can't change terms on a whim, where she is forced to not rely upon arguements from authoriy, or arguments that claim popularity as a gauge of the accuracy of her commentary... she is completely and totally lost.

And you know what Richard... you think that grabbing my domain name bothers me? Ha!

It only shows me just how much the Small Dead Animals 2.0 site has been effective. It proves that Kate absolutely hates being exposed over and over and over and over again where she can't hit her BAN, EDIT, DELETE function.

You won't get some sort of faustian bargain out of me. I will not give Small Dead Animals 2.0 away. Not while it serves to educate unsuspecting people new to the blogoverse about the true nature of hate that exists on the internet, that comes in the form of Catherine McMillan from Deslisle Saskatchewan.

Small Dead Animals 2.0 is a parody site. Much like the Michelle-Malkin site exists, much like the Ezra levant-watch site existed. To keep lunatics like Kate in line.

Small Dead Animals 2.0 and it's existence reminds Kate that if she crosses lines and ventures into PURE HATE SPEECH, that people are watching, recording and making a full account of it, to add to the rest of the count.

It's a pity that Small Dead Animals 2.0 bothers *you* so much Richard.
Why is it.
You find one portion of that site that is not cited, and backed up with screen captures, links or proof of Kate actually saying those words and I will be happy to correct it.

But that's not what you want.
You want it erased... You want people to stay in their fuzzy ignorant bubble about the most prolific proponent of hate on the Canadian political blogworld.

Sorry.
I'm not going to let you do that Richard.
Not now.
Not ever.

besides which, when I upgraded from my computer 2 computers ago, I lost the password to get into the account. I have no idea how to log back onto the site, even if I wanted to.

Sucks for you.
Ha.

Meaghan

thwap said...

Oh the holy terror of the ad-hominem attack!!!

That's the term that whiny right-wing children use when they're upset.

Richard, I'm calling you "stupid" because you say "stupid," nonsensical things. I already explained why I say that. You're lame-ass attempt at snark regarding Josh Marshall. Marshall's "Talking-Points Memo" is an intelligent site, grounded in the real-world, whereas you, and the entire right-wing, are a bunch of 10th-rate morons who can't muster suitable counter-arguments, and so you hoot and holler like frightened baboons. It's why you're all so lame. In a better world, sensible people would go their entire lives unaware of the existence of people such as yourself.

Re: The SDA-2 site - the plot thickens; It appears that Meaghan didn't put up a "parody" site. (As you erroneously put it, Meaghan.) It's apparently a place where KKKate's own "best-ofs" during the 2004-05 period, were recorded for posterity, with (according to you Meaghan) absolutely no embellishment.

CC's point remains Richard. You're a crude buffoon, and someone like Olaf, who used to show up here bewailing the low tone of the debate, really has no grounds for such complaint now that he's taken up with you.

ironic said...

"In other news, "Canadian Cynic" sometimes uses bad words; therefore, all liberals are a bunch of angry, moonbat leftards. But you knew that already, right?"

Piss poor logic there, shithead. All liberals are angry moonbat leftards by definition; your use of bad words just makes you foul-mouthed.

Anonymous said...

All liberals are angry moonbat leftards by definition

No, this isn't true. You're just lying. All rightards are liars. In fact, they lie to start wars to kill thousands of people.

Lying liars and the lies they tell.

notcycles said...

Meaghan, a few points;

"And I didn't create Small Dead Animals 2.0 since 2000. I wasn't even blogging in 2000. I created Small Dead Animals 2.0 at some point around 2004-2005."

It can be seen easily enough that there are archived posts on SDA 2.0 dating back to 2000. Either you were lying when you set the posts dates or you're lying now. Which is it?

Here's a screen cap to help
jog your memory:

http://no-libs.com/images/sda2.jpg

In your reply above, you state clearly that you started it.

Further, you were bragging just today about SDA 2.0. Here's a quote/link to refersh your memory:

For more fun - people could also visit the Small Dead Animals 2.0 website where I take Kate's own words from her very own blog posts and satirize them to show how ridiculous they are."

Sounds like ownership to me...

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rightgirl/4544049800784790562/#354415

It doesn't matter why you started it and, frankly I don't care. The fact is that you did it. Period. Your crime is the same as mine. If these "progressive" bloggers are going to denounce me, they have to denounce you as well. Period. If you're going to complain that I'm using a domain that you use, you first have to look at the domains that you use that belong to others. Period.

You're right about wanting it erased. Delete SDA 2.0 and I'll ensure that all of my domains are given to their rightful owner.

notcycles said...

"Oh the holy terror of the ad-hominem attack!!!

That's the term that whiny right-wing children use when they're upset."


I'm not upset. Merely addressing the facts.

Richard, I'm calling you "stupid" because you say "stupid," nonsensical things. I already explained why I say that. You're lame-ass attempt at snark regarding Josh Marshall. Marshall's "Talking-Points Memo" is an intelligent site, grounded in the real-world, whereas you, and the entire right-wing, are a bunch of 10th-rate morons who can't muster suitable counter-arguments, and so you hoot and holler like frightened baboons. It's why you're all so lame. In a better world, sensible people would go their entire lives unaware of the existence of people such as yourself."

And I think you're a stupidhead. See, I can play the ad-hom game too... Only I'm better at it...

"Re: The SDA-2 site - the plot thickens; It appears that Meaghan didn't put up a "parody" site. (As you erroneously put it, Meaghan.) It's apparently a place where KKKate's own "best-ofs" during the 2004-05 period, were recorded for posterity, with (according to you Meaghan) absolutely no embellishment."

And how do you explain Meaghan's claims to having started the site and the archived posts dated prior to 2004? C'mon Einstein, do some math...

"CC's point remains Richard. You're a crude buffoon, and someone like Olaf, who used to show up here bewailing the low tone of the debate, really has no grounds for such complaint now that he's taken up with you."

CC refuses to condemn MWW for committing the exact crime that I committed. I would put forth that CC, like you, has zero credibility.

Ti-Guy said...

Jesus, Richard Evans. Are you geting even dumber? Is that even possible?

Anonymous said...

"In a better world, sensible people would go their entire lives unaware of the existence of people such as yourself."

In a better and more sensible world, small children would throw rotten fruit and cabbages at the man if he walked out in public and Adults would jeer and mock him ruthlessly for being such a tool.

I highly suspect that there is NOBODY in Richard Evans REAL life that actually listens to a word he says about anything without either rolling their eyes, moving away politely, or telling him to bugger off.

That's why he is obsessed with his "net cred". It's why he's on this crusade about the SDA 2.0 site. If he impresses Kate, she'll give him more linkage - which amounts to more morons to read his drivel. It's all about the economics of hit-whoring for him.

You know how to tell when Richard has really taken too hard a blow to the tummy in a net debate... he calls in the reinforcements. I predict that the winged monkey brigade will be infesting CCs quarters in say, T-Minus 4 hours or so.

That's the other thing about Richard Evans that's Soooo predicatble at this point. He doesn't perform well unless he's got some cretinous goof to play alongside him.

It's funny... it used to be Jeffy that would metaphorically occasionally whip off all his clothing and run naked screaming through the prog-blog world. But Jeffy seemed to calm down a lot after talking with Ian.

It seems that Richard needs to wrangle up some new friend to play at being stupid sattelite... See like pretty girls keep ugly friends around to make them look better. Richard has a whole herd of idiots to make him look smarter.

That's why he's so convinced of his brilliance and that his humour is so hilarious. In blogging conservative Stupid-ville, he's the heavy-hitter.

There's some comfort in that... come to think of it.

notcycles said...

" Ti-Guy said...

Jesus, Richard Evans. Are you geting even dumber? Is that even possible? "


Climb off the child for a while and pay attention to what's going on thai-guy.

"I highly suspect that there is NOBODY in Richard Evans REAL life that actually listens to a word he says about anything without either rolling their eyes, moving away politely, or telling him to bugger off."

Are any of you folks going to actually address the issue at hand? MWW has been caught committing the exact "crime" I've been accused of. Where are CC's denunciations that MWW be removed from every blogroll to the third degree?

Here's a tune to help you get on track while you think about the question: http://www.no-libs.com/audio/what_about_the_issues.mp3

Anonymous said...

"It can be seen easily enough that there are archived posts on SDA 2.0 dating back to 2000. Either you were lying when you set the posts dates or you're lying now. Which is it?"

It was an archiving issue. When I was making the comic strip I wanted to put it in order... putting it in order meant futzing around with dates. I also put some scanned images into the archives so as to be able to pull them up later in the blog... I believe those would be the screen captures that I mentioned.

I was compiling all of the info - and needed to put things in order. There is no quote from Kate that is attributed back to 2000. Did you even bother to READ the cited quotes?

It's not *lying* to archive screen captures and images back to earlier dates to ensure that they don't interfer with what you are trying to post.

If you examine my own blog, you will see blog posts dated back to 2000... those blog posts are newspaper articles I wrote, or were written about me, back in that period of time. I also have some old archived news stories about the Clinton Whitewater Scandal on my blog... which I put way back in the archives... I was a heavy researcher into the Clinton Scandals Richard - for about 4 and 1/2 years.

Come on. You are just being ridiculous.

I do recall that some backdated articles were taken from Kate's MotorCycle Diaries... which were written back in early 2001-2-or 3.
I put them in according to the dates that were marked ON the motorcycle diaries.

Is grabbing an old entry From Kate's Motorcycle diaries and then putting it into a slot in blogger so that it accurately reflects the timeframe in which she wrote something "LYING"?

I didn't even KNOW Kate McMillan until I believe well into 2004. I first encountered her on Ezra Levants Shotgun blog.

IS Kate telling people that I have been blogging about her for 7 years? Because if she is - she's a liar, and she bloody well knows better.

MW

MW

Anonymous said...

PS - no "crime" has been committed Richard.

The fact is, you're a tool. You're a tool... You're a tool, and oh yeah...before I forget to mention it...You're a tool.

CC gave one example of your toolishness, but there are many many many other reasons why people don't want to associate with you that have nothing to do with this domain name thing.

By the way... I note that www.no-libs.net is now pointing here to Canadian Cynic. Too bad. When the other commenter suggested a few hours ago that some extensions for no-libs were still available I thought turn-about would be fair play....I went hunting for what other domain names I could buy of yours...and gosh gee whiz... It looks like most of the good ones are now sold out.

So anyway.. about this Tool thing.
I think your basic toolishness is the main reason people are excercising their FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION... which includes (as you should be aware) the freedom to NOT associate with certain people.

Do you understand... or should I try to explain the tool thing to you again?

M

I'd say "no-libs" is going to have an interesting net history from now on.

notcycles said...

"I was compiling all of the info - and needed to put things in order. There is no quote from Kate that is attributed back to 2000. Did you even bother to READ the cited quotes?

It's not *lying* to archive screen captures and images back to earlier dates to ensure that they don't interfer with what you are trying to post."


So you lied about the post dates. Good I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now, back to the issue at hand. Should you not be condemned for using another bloggers site name in the same manner you're trying to condemn me for using your site's name? Yes or no? The proof is there. Reasons are irrelevant. The fact is that you took "smalldeadanimals" and claimed it as your own. I took "somenamediamedia" and claimed it as my own. Are we any different, yes or no?


***crickets chirping***

waiting for the inevitable "yeah it was right for me to do it but not you" response...

thwap said...

It's not lying. It's necessary to order the posts.

Since you're having difficulties, SDA-2 is an expose-ay of KKKate's ugly racism. It's far removed from your tom-foolery.

There. Now your issue has been addressed. Go watch tv or something and stop wasting everyone's time.

Anonymous said...

"So you lied about the post dates. Good I'm glad we cleared that up."

No Richard. You aren't Perry Mason. You haven't just made some dramatic court room finger pointing gesture at me with an "AH HA!" to the Judge and Jury.

mw

notcycles said...

"The fact is, you're a tool. You're a tool... You're a tool, and oh yeah...before I forget to mention it...You're a tool."

I love it when you engage in intelligent debate...

"By the way... I note that www.no-libs.net is now pointing here to Canadian Cynic."

Cool. somenamedia.com now points to stormfront. I can play that game all day...

"I think your basic toolishness is the main reason people are excercising their FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION... which includes (as you should be aware) the freedom to NOT associate with certain people."

That's right Meaghan, folks have the freedom to associate. It's interesting... How many folks, after having been exposed to your blatent hypocrisy, will continue to associate with you? Or CC for that matter? He does appear to be some sort of enabler...

PS: saw your new blogspot site: http://mwwsmusings.blogspot.com . Good luck with that.

notcycles said...

remember when I said: "waiting for the inevitable "yeah it was right for me to do it but not you" response..."?

lol sure didn't take very long;

"It's not lying. It's necessary to order the posts.

Since you're having difficulties, SDA-2 is an expose-ay of KKKate's ugly racism. It's far removed from your tom-foolery.
"

Alright, let me see if we've got this strait; MWW fudged the post dates. We can all agree on that, yes? Good. You folks can rationalize it however you wish but the fact remains that she altered the dates of the posts.

Now, we can also agree that MWW took "smalldeadanimals" and claimed it as her own by attaching it to a blogspot site, yes? We can also agree that MWW's actions in that sense are exactly the same as the actions of myself in claiming "somenamediamedia.com" for my own, yes?

Good.

Now, seeing that I've been denounced for my actions, it'd be interesting to know just exactly when MWW will be denounced for taking those exact same actions...

Meaghan; You're too sloppy. The likes of Perry Mason aren't required to catch you in a lie.

Anonymous said...

lovely website Richard. And linking to Stomfront... classic you.

Keep going... you are really on a roll.

notcycles said...

Thanks anon...

Back to the question at hand...

When is CC going to begin his jihad against MWW for usurping another bloggers site name?

***crickets chirping***

Scotian said...

Richard Evans aka notcycles:

I am breaking my usual rule of not responding to what you write; do not assume I will be repeating this. However, your clear attempt to smear MWW is not something I am going to sit by and watch without commenting on it. I was watching contemporaneously most of the conflict between Kate and MWW, and it was the clear hatchet jobs on MWW's personal life completely unsupported and especially her comment about how aboriginal activists should be locked up because they are being activists that condemned her in my eyes. MWW is not someone I tend to agree with on a lot of topics, although usually I can understand where she is coming from because while I may not agree with her conclusions she at least uses facts to derive them from, whereas folks like you and Kate make things up, infer and put words in the mouths of those you oppose. Your own history with many folks is all over the net for anyone to search out and your attempts to bother others by buying up their domain names to redirect has got to be the most juvenile, petty, and immature action I have seen in either the Canadian or American political blogosphere.

You clearly are out for attention and you also clearly care about whether you irritate those you dislike/disagree with, your actions make that abundantly clear no matter what you want to say. Your ability to insult the intelligence is remarkable even among a group that has a poor connection to facts/reality. You can claim you are acting out of some sort of principle all you want, what you reveal about yourself is a level of insecurity that can only be described as pathetic given your actions. I know you don't care what I say or think; you have made clear your contempt for all that dare disagree with you and those you believe in. I write this more for those that will read and not comment, and I do so because I have developed respect for MWW based on her the quality of her work that I have read (I freely acknowledge I read her occasionally and therefore have not seen everything, but that which I have has impressed me with her ability to deal with the fact based world instead of the fantasies far too many political ideologues/partisans live in particularly on the right in today's NA) and chose to add my own endorsement of it.

Feel free to write whatever you want about me and this comment Richard, I will not be responding, for unlike some folks I am not so insecure as to need the attention, nor do I feel compelled to always have the last word on something, another one of your many immature traits I might add.

BTW, MWW did not "usurp" Kate's site, nor did she do redirections unlike yourself, so yet again you compare apples and oranges and claim they are the same. Yet you think you are the one winning these arguments. This is what truly discredits you Richard Evans, this sort of inability to deal with reality and instead needing to be always right even/especially when the clear facts show otherwise. So your demand for CC to answer your question is simply yet another one of your many dodges instead of accepting that you are wrong to begin with, that even if you are right it does not alter your own hypocrisy and immaturity in acting in this manner by using the old "but she did it too/first!" response of a 5 year old.

General:

Yes, I know, troll feeding is always a waste of time, but I needed to say it. Don’t worry though I know how to resist the temptation as a general practice. As I said though I have seen MWW viciously attacked in the past by these folks and I refuse to ignore it when I see it happening again without registering my disagreement with it as I have done here. Have fun with the young twit, me I'm going back to ignoring him.

the rev. said...

Richard has a whole herd of idiots to make him look smarter.

A whole herd? There can't possibly be that many people stupider than Dick Evans.

Meaghan Champion said...

The rev...

Obviously my good man, you have not spent time in the bowels of the SDA comments section.

*brrr.... chill*

the rev. said...

Awww, I always figured that those were the same three blogging tories Canada's lowest common denominatix keeps chained up under her porch, they just change user IDs everytime they open a new bag of cheetos -- that or it was AI software that just spews out variations on the same garbled talking points.

notcycles said...

Those crickets are still chirping...

M@ said...

You know what's really funny? Dicky's name for Ti-Guy. "Thai-guy"! Get it? It actually sounds like his name, but implies that Ti-Guy is Thai, or likes Thai people or food or something, but the main thing is it sounds the same!

Hilarious, and so very clever!

What, am I the only one laughing at that!?

***crickets chirping***

Crabgrass said...

Wow, Richard, having purchased all of those look-alike URL's has obviously put you in a position of substantial leverage. And all this time I had assumed that people for the most part would react by either mocking or ignoring you.

Crabgrass said...

M@, you're right about the "Thai-Guy" thing. It is absolutely hilarious. Richard is a comic genius.

For my money, his best-ever demonstration of wit would be a close race between inventing that stingingly derisive nickname "Thai-Guy" and this gut-busting gem, from this very thread: "But, and this is a big BUTT..."

OMG!!! LOL!!! Ouch, my ribs.

the rev. said...

Crabgrass, you said it. I can't believe he doesn't give it all up and move to Hollywood to write for Leno.
Laugh, I nearly started.

thwap said...

"Nocycles at a Party" [A play in one act.]

Notcycles: "Boy, I sure hope somebody comes to my party this time."

(sound of crickets chirping.)

notcycles said...

you guys going to address the question or continue dancing around like directionless neutered hyenas?

E in MD said...

I'll tell ya what... You leftards make Meaghan delete the "Small Dead Animals 2.0" blog (she did start this game after all) and I'll graciously transfer the domain names I own to their rightful owner...

Sound like a fair deal?

- - - - - - -

Right.. cuz all us lefttards are all in the same room and are all friends unlike you wingnuts who are all brave serious individuals. So obviously CC is completely responsible for the actions of someone else seven fucking years ago.

Tell you what, you get Coulter to admit she was out of line to call for John Edwards to die in a terrorist attack, immature to call him a 'faggot' as a schoolyard taunt and treasonous to call for the assasination of Bill Clinton, and I'll see what I can do about this stupid blog you're so concerned about.

Even better, you get George W. Bush to admit that its wrong to invade other countries for fun and profit, and I'll get you a cookie too.

thwap said...

chirp-chirp,

oh waitaminnit,

"Yip-yip! I can't have children! Yip-yip! Where am I going? Yip-yip!"

thwap said...

(that was s'posed to be a "directionless, neutered, hyena" btw.

notcycles said...

"Right.. cuz all us lefttards are all in the same room and are all friends unlike you wingnuts who are all brave serious individuals. So obviously CC is completely responsible for the actions of someone else seven fucking years ago."

Actually, it's been a repeated act ongoing for the past 7 years. It wasn't a simple transgression that happened 7 years ago...

Further, as CC is attempting to exert some sort of force on Olaf using peer pressure, I thought it would be appropriate to do the same.

Oh, wait... Lemmie guess... This is another one of those times where I'm not allowed to play the game by your rules...

E said...

Once again ignoring the transgressions of the left in order to attack an innocent... Well done CC...

Innocent? What the hell are you smoking? You just admitted the shit you did. You're about as innocent as Libby.

He's using it as a means to attack a decent centrist blogger that makes a decent argument that CC can't refute...

By notcycles


Your argument is 'nyah nyah look what I can do to fuck with you. But but but she did it first! Waaah'. Here's a refutation, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone wronged someone else years ago doesn't give you the right to do the same thing. Even if it was done to you, which it wasn't. You can pretend to be a knight in shining armor all you want but what you really are is a juvenile bully holding someone else's cap above someone else's head and taunting them on the schoolyard. Then you're bragging about it. The fact is that you're trying to turn it into some massive left wing conspiracy to create some illusory indicator that all liberals are bad is complete bullshit when you yourself are doing the same thing. Personally I could give two shits what domain you decided to hork or what this other person did. In either case we're not talking about two rival mafia houses whacking each others members - what Megan did was sattire of an existing what you're doing is redirecting people to completely different sites because they made a typo on a web address. Now you're over in someone else's blog trying to start a virtual fist fight to make yourself feel righteous when actually you're just being a jerk.

E in MD said...

Piss poor logic there, shithead. All liberals are angry moonbat leftards by definition; your use of bad words just makes you foul-mouthed.

By ironic,

- - - - - -

And angry wingnuts serve up just as much hate and plenty of sweeping generalizations.

What does that make people like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter who make a living by spreading hatred and anger against anyone different than they are? Or is it ok because you agree with them?

notcycles said...

"Innocent? What the hell are you smoking? You just admitted the shit you did. You're about as innocent as Libby."

Never once said I was innocent. Olaf is innocent. Reread the thread and you'll catch on soon enough.

"Here's a refutation, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone wronged someone else years ago doesn't give you the right to do the same thing."

Two wrongs don't make a right, you're correct. Bitching about one but not the other is a problem though.

"Even if it was done to you, which it wasn't."

You're wrong there. Meaghan put this spoof site together last fall: (letstupidityrule.blogspot.com)

All I'm sayin' is that if you're going to bitch at me for doing the exact same thing she did then you should consider bitching at her as well. Further, if you choose the way of the hypocrite, and focus your ire only in my direction, make damned sure you actually hit your target. Don't take it out on innocent individuals.

Is that clear enough for you mental midgets?

thwap said...

My last word to you, mental midget.

What you did is nothing like what Meaghan did.

That's why nobody is bothering with you.

You thought you had a great idea, but like all your other brainwaves, it turned out to be shit.

Get a grip. You're wrong.

Good-bye.

notcycles said...

try again thwap... they're exactly the same...

Crabgrass said...

And a rhino is the same as a seahorse. They're both animals. No further namby-pamby analysis required, right?

Anonymous said...

"Actually, it's been a repeated act ongoing for the past 7 years. It wasn't a simple transgression that happened 7 years ago." --

This is a lie. I haven't been blogging for more than 3 years tops. Only built SDA 2.0 in late 2005.

I archived her earlier "greatests hits" on blogger, with date stamps from when she actually posted the remarks which I chose to highlight.

What's really funny is that until this little brouhaha, I haven't even thought much of the website, and haven't added to it in well over a year.

But that Richard Evans is still going apolectic over it -- makes me happy.

mw

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute.. NOW I remember... It was when Kate was cheerleading for my friend Marc Emery to be sent State Side to prison for the rest of his natural life for selling marijuana seeds.

That's when I got motivated to actually build a site.... I found an old reference on her blog to her having done some kind of drugs and going driving....

mw

So I figured it was a little hypocritical for her to cheer for what seems to be a near death sentence for my friend Marc.