Forgot your password?

Journal: Bug Report 17

Journal by damn_registrars
It appears that the pudgescript started in a non-complete manner this time. I see it again awoke and started by replying to one of my comments in a non-informative way. It even proceeded to insult me as usual. However, there is a noted bug in this iteration of the run.

Namely, after several replies, it has yet to accuse me of lying. It still follows most of its usual behaviors, but the lying accusation module is not being called up on the usual schedule. Someone might want to look into this before we have any further slashdot code-rot.
User Journal

Journal: Which of these are progressive values? 78

Journal by damn_registrars
From recent messages from Smitty, it appears that all of these values are now the property of progressives - or at the very least, conservatives oppose them:
  • Actual independent, non-partisan agenda-free investigations into events
  • Government representation of the people, elected by the people
  • Having federal agencies do the job they are tasked with

I can see how conservatives would hate those ideas so much. That is, I can understand it, if they live in some sort of alternate up==down reality.

User Journal

Journal: [conspiracy] How many investigations do we need? 15

Journal by damn_registrars
For reasons that are not abundantly clear (aside from the fact that they don't seem to have a better one), Benghazi seems to remain the most popular conspiracy theory for the conservatives. I will remind us in this JE though that there have already been two reports released, neither of which have been particularly kind to the administration:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Benghazi

NY Times report on Benghazi

So we have two reports, one from the government and one that was from the media. Neither were kind to the administration, yet neither provided everything the conservatives wanted either. So how many investigations do they want? At what point will they be happy?

It appears the first answer is "enough to drive the president out of the white house", and the second is likely "only after the president and everyone with a "D" after their name is driven permanently from Washington DC".
User Journal

Journal: $freaks++ 4

Journal by damn_registrars
This hasn't happened in a while...

Relationship Change
sent by Slashdot Message System on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @07:05PM

RalphWigum (519738) has made you their foe.

I suspect it may relate to one of the comments I posted in the discussion on the voter shortsightedness article as I haven't written much here that has gotten much attention lately, but that's just a guess.


Journal: Bug Report 3

Journal by damn_registrars
Since there seems to be at least one user here on slashdot, I figured this is a good place to file the bug report as I am not sure who the maintainer is.

Application: PudgeScript

Version: Unknown, presumably current?

Severity: Low-Moderate

Reproducibility: Uncertain

Description: The PudgeScript parser does not accurately recognize requests for information. See example where a request was not acknowledged. It appears that the current version might only recognize requests when they end with a question mark, however as the PudgeScript is supposed to emulate the activity of a person with training as a journalist, this is insufficient.

Furthermore, the execution of PudgeScript shown in that example forgot to accuse me of lying. This may be a bug as well.
User Journal

Journal: Bring on the trolls 13

Journal by damn_registrars
I suddenly am being followed by a troll that likes to spout the same nonfactual nonsense that was thrown at me in years past. I wonder if the troll is an AC for the person who keeps down-moderating me in JE discussions. Either way they aren't very good at what they're doing. They really aren't even very good at wasting my time.
User Journal

Journal: That's a long joke there, friend 17

Journal by damn_registrars
Slashdot's fake conservative really went for a long setup on this joke.. Really, really, really long. And with a few mini-jokes in it as well - really, a pretty good show there friend.

I'll start with the first mini-joke, as it is right in the title. He calls his joke "The Scientific Pro-Life Argument"; the problem though is that there is quite nearly no valid science in his argument anywhere.

After all, his bit about

one or more of the following phenomenon -- mitosis (cellular division where the DNA is duplicated), cellular respiration, as a result of osmosis or photosynthesis, etc.

Applies as well to an embryo as it does to the skin cells that you wash off in the bathroom. Or the cells from your respiratory tract that you literally sneezed out the last time you had a cold. Or any of a number of other living cells that we regularly shed as part of our daily existence. In short, there is nothing special about that list; he posted it to make the conservative anti-abortion argument look silly (and it did a pretty good job there).

He follows up with this logical failure:

Some times, there is no explanation for a in-vitro death.

Which, presumably, was chosen just to show how conservatives can make themselves look more ridiculous when trying to sound scientific than they already look when they just embrace their ignorance.

It goes well with his interesting term


Which should basically mean "people who love to stop". And who runs around with giant stop signs to proclaim their political stance?

He also included an obligatory political jab as the conservative stance is often to assume that the reader isn't smart enough to figure out on their own who the favored audience is:

some Democrats consider people to be dependent children up to age 26.

Even though that has nothing to do with the matter at all.

He then pretended to be knowledgeable on medical ethics - and of course advocated for forcing the stance of a conservative male on the population of the entire world - while also pushing an unsupported line about the effects on the mother.

So what was the final punchline? It appears to be primarily the notion that conservatives support redefining "science" to push their agenda (while simultaneously doing everything they can to prevent funding of scientific research, mind you) on topics that they refuse to actually become well versed on. There were a few others buried in there but by and large this seems to be much like when a certain radio host claimed to be educated in "the sciences" before repeatedly shoving his foot in his mouth on pretty much every scientific matter he could think of to lecture his audience on.

By the way, friend, if you're reading this you forgot something. Namely, you didn't have a bestiality / homosexuality / anal sex / genetic inferiority line in there. I know it's been a while since you've been here to put on your act, so I thought I'd mention it to you as a service to help you get your act back up to par sooner. Good luck.

User Journal

Journal: My friend is back to writing jokes! 4

Journal by damn_registrars
My friend the fake conservative does have a habit of deleting his journal entries, so there isn't much point in linking to it. He did, however make the same text a comment in smitty's JE.

This doesn't have all of his usual comedy themes in it - maybe he's just out of practice - but it does have several. The real joke here is a little more subtle, and I don't want to give away the punch line just yet.

Thanks friend! Things were getting a bit stale around here.
