Masks tend to fall off over time

This is a response to the latest attempt at blackwashing Miles Mathis and his achievements. After reading Mathis’ own response and most recently my brother-in-arms’ Josh’s response, I feel I need to add my two cents. In particular, some things have to be pointed out and called for what they are. At face value, this time.

I am lately in a special mood when it comes to people, having a fun time while giving them back my verbal description of their own impression. It usually refers to direct human interaction we all experience while socializing in an analogue, old fashioned way.

Have you ever experienced a very strong feeling of annoyance? Annoyance is an unpleasant mental state that is characterized by such effects as irritation and distraction from one’s conscious thinking. It can lead to emotions such as frustration and anger. If you have ever experienced it, you should know how powerful feeling annoyance actually is.

The latest attack on Miles Mathis as it was posted at PieceOfMindful.com is one of such powerful annoying agents, for instance. Although it is very hard and subjective to measure the state of annoyance, the linked wanna-be attack on Miles is just that – hard and subjective, void of substance piece of annoyance. It is a large amount of words, that have absolutely no weight in terms of »depth of insight«. It consists of mostly prejudices, assumptions and shows great amount of fear of logic and rebuttals, as it calls for a closed comment section already in its disclaimer. I laughed it out loud. It reminded me of my neighbor’s little dog, who always ferociously barks at me whenever behind a large fence, while he becomes mute once in the open field. Just pathetic. Is that how any man is supposed to behave and act like?

Describing my personal experience with Tokarski, use of double standard is apparent while publishing latest two posts. While my own banned posts was allegedly not sufficiently enough supported by verifiable arguments, latest post at PoM does not even include proper source list or any account of personal experience with Miles. That is with one exception, though – Tokarski and Miles did meet at his conference in Taos back in 2016. Which is a fact so easily ignored. But I am not surprised by the amount of ignorance at PoM as it seems more like a bliss than an obstacle over there.

I did not have enough patience to search through PoM comments for some examples where Miles got praised by Tokarski. Why is that of any importance? Well, in my worldview, one does not expect to be blackwashed by those who bear words of praise for you. I dare to call PoM’s act as hypocrisy, but I let you decide on your own.

All that came to my mind even before I thought about the substance of those two posts. And the substance itself? In my opinion, both posts lack it, they are completely void of anything substantial which would justify the pompous headline they were published under. If Tokarski or K.Starr or any other anonymous authors claim Miles is misdirecting or a limited-hangout psyop, don’t they think they need to undoubtedly prove it? Is that the new low rate standard at PoM? Where is any apparent misdirection coming from Miles? Anybody? Can any of them point out anything meaningful in that reference? No, they cannot as there is nothing alike to point out when discussing Miles’ discoveries. And that is what bothers me the most. All we can read about is their quackery, weak and substance-less points, that do not stick. It is really time for the Intel to gear up and bring out somebody worth listening to when it comes to proper critique of Miles’ achievements. Until now, in all these long years, there is still nobody who was able to find a single issue where Miles can be proven wrong. All I see and read about, is composed of ad hominem attacks, slander and foolish attempts to blackwash one genius’ immense opus of work. Come on, guys at Intel, is that really all you can produce? I challenge you here and now – drop your anonymity and masks and come out of the digital bushes, properly armed with knowledge and decency in conversation. Let us see how you can deal with the truth and do not let us wait for too long.

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “Masks tend to fall off over time

  1. Seriously, that’s as good as they’ve got. Ham-handed, hatchetless chop-jobs by weak opponents posing as allies – or whatever Mark Tokarski was pretending to be. As I mentioned in those now-closed, censored comments – why would anyone go to Miles’ conference without having read his physics papers closely in the first place? How could you even be interested enough in the guy or his theories to visit him out-of-state at all, unless inspired by the bright light of his physics papers? Mark only lasted four days of the five. How could you not want that last day to absorb even more?

    But they’re also purposely divisive. It’s not about “camps” or being pro-Miles. It’s about truth and honesty. I don’t concur with or entertain Miles because he’s got long hair or whatever, but rather because his work makes sense, his writing helps me address and solve problems. His ideas work better than the other ones I’ve been exposed to or researched. The whole PoM stink seems like it was intended to polarize people, and that’s just Langley Handbook, chapter 2 stuff. They sent in rookies. Again.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Jared, I see your point but I think it’s off the mark. Mark has always said his main purpose in going to the conference was to meet Miles in person and size him up. Also that particular conference was open to conspiracy discussion as well. So I don’t really see a big contradiction here. Mark had the time and the means. He was curious about the man. He went. And he claims to have been bored most of the time due to so much physics talk. I don’t feel a need to defend him, but I think our arguments should be on target.

      But I agree with Vexman that something weird is going on over there at PoM. Also I’m like 99.9% certain that ‘Maarten’ is the one who authored the piece by ‘Robert,’ and I find it weird that he would do that instead of writing under his usual pseudonym.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Thanks for sharing that with us about Maarten. It may be a simple tactic to remain neutral as with saying nothing about Mathis on the surface, so he could later be communicating with the rest of us. He knows we will not toss the baby out with the water. As in the case of Tyrone, for whom I somehow think is just an honest contributor at now infamous PoM. That’s why I find your insight very important, a very good catch.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. lets see if my comment will get through here. Fakeologist throw me out after a few comments of mine, Simon Shack didn’t even allow me to register despite our occasional email exchange. Miles Mathis answers mostly with “I disagree”. Mark Tokarski never did such things. He simply allowed others to comment in his blog only blocking the really ridicule ones which is fine with me. And if one reads between the lines in all those replies to the recent critic on MM it only confirms the critic. Looks like you guys are all from one and the same company. You sometimes pretend to fight like all the wrestlers do. As for me, my family has no mention on the internet, no mention in any paper local or other, not a trace in the world wide web. You cannot trace my family roots back using any ancestry pages. That doesn’t mean, I’m fake. It only means I don’t work for the media. This applies for all regular people and that cannot be said about characters like Sim-on Shack or Miles Mathe-ass. I’m grateful for all the essential input you guys occasionally post but I’m always drawing my own conclusions. You will not misdirect me. Not anymore. With kindly regards. BM

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Using primitive and vulgar language is not welcomed here. Either comply or do not return, I will not ban you for now.

    We do not come from any kind of same company. For one, I am a one-man band and there is nobody directing my thoughts and actions other than my self. That seems to be the issue you’re having with the guys like us. All you have got is presumptions and speculations which can’t be verified. Of course nothing alike can be verified about me or anybody else you’re accusing as there is not a grain of truth there. Do you have anything else to offer, this is really boring, you know.

    Same applies to Mathis and his genealogy (according to his own rather than K.Starr’s), all you have there for certain does not mean Mathis is a gatekeeper per se. You have to yet show me where he’s misdirecting (or whatever you’re accusing him of) and only then start shouting out your usual load. So far nothing worth mentioning or substantial came from all of you combined together. I expect that to remain the same, for goodness’ sake, you haven’t even read 80% of his output before deciding, Müller.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. sorry for using “ass”, where I meant “ace”. And I have this term from Mr. Simon Shack himself. I never had an opportunity to learn English properly. I’m willing to learn. I meant “Miles Mathe-ace”. We all here on the WWW have only digital identities. Everything digital can be faked or copied and there’s no way to prove if someone’s digital identity represents a real person or a team of ghost writers. So the only thing what matters is our outputs which are texts. Texts can be read and one can and always should read between the lines. What Kevin Starr or Robert Zherunkel wrote is not different to what Miles Mathis writes in his genealogy papers, no? MM even confirms those findings were real. Well maybe. Or maybe this is their game of giving each other credibility. I had the same feeling when I read the IMO fake fighting between Phil Jayhan and Simon Shack on letsrollforums. I would never have found the cluesforum without ace baker laughing at them and I would never found Miles Mathis without cluesforum laughing at him. I read the most of MM non scientific papers and overflow many of the scientific ones. You can destroy your entire credibility with a single paper and there is no need to read all of them. I think that’s what MM did with his PI=4 paper on purpose. And that’s what SS is doing with his Tycho stuff now. There’s nothing to see here move along. Mark Tokarski has just announced follow up pieces to the recent critic on MM on POM. So far the texts on POM look more convincing to me than what MM writes in defense of himself or what you guys write to support him. And the fact, that the great and only MM answers to the critics on him twice speaks for itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Some of the findings. Not all. Genealogy is expensive, is KevinS rich or did he scrape all his 30 pieces of silver together to do a hatchet job because he was told to do so? PoM have hung onto Miles’ work but have never really broken fresh ground. Now they’re shooting (at) the messenger for NO apparent reason. Like David Icke was once described, ‘A turd in the punchbowl’, who has now been replaced by Flat Earthers.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Are U sure they are shooting at the messenger instead of toasting champaigne with the messenger?
        Are U sure the reason is not apparent? Then you have not been paying attention all along.

        Like

          1. I consider Muller spooky at least. His comments continuously divert and digress, and he’s not even consistent with himself. Ahmad’s an obvious splat too, given the conversation and feedback. Someone from PoM trolling under a pseudonym, which means “he” is also spooky.

            How do you misspell “ace” and then pretend you didn’t mean “ass” initially? Pathetic. Even non-English speakers know what “ass” means. Everyone does.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. You said you are willing to learn, yet you have again failed to use proper language when describing Pi=4. Yes, in kinematic situations, Pi =4, even Mathis knows how to calculate circumference of a static circle, for goodness sake. So he may have discredited himself in your eyes maybe, but that’s not the general case. I don’t know what to think of you anymore, Müller. Try to be consistent with what you actually do understand.

      Comparing Shack with Mathis is no serious comparison in truther terms. Think once for what Shack is telling you with SeptClues – it’s all about media fakery. How can he then use the same video footage, released mostly by the media, to point out where and how it was edited? Fakery in, fakery out, those 9/11 tapes are all useless in terms of analysis other then to prove their fakery. Planes or no planes, 9/11 stinks head to toes. His role was about further dividing 9/11 community, while he gets the credits for pointing out what may be obvious to many. Shack’s Tychos is a miserable attempt at describing visible universe, where charge is not mentioned even once. I don’t remember Shack even touching on physics or math behind it, so it’s impossible to compare him with Mathis. I think many of us can see how Shack’s mask fell of as soon as he published that piece.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. It works both ways, Muller. You say his credibility was lost with a paper you didn’t read very well or understand, minus any rebuttal about the math – but then you post over and over again these inane non-critiques and demolish your own credibility wholesale, multiple times. We have agreed on several topics before and that’s fine. But once again we have a critic who simply refuses to read the material, and instead goes for the logical fallacies as an attempted attack.

      You’re still not even hitting the walls. Build a bigger trebuchet.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Well done Vexman, and also to Josh for his piece on cuttingthroughthefog. Mark Tokarski has either flipped or is a spook. How else can you explain his position from his amour fou for Miles one minute and now his acting like a spurned lover the next. His recent paper on Eva Peron, wherein he thinks Madonna’s mother even looks like her, was ridiculous. Wanda Jackson looks more like Mad’s ma, even the pale descendant Michael Jackson replacement if you squint enough.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. I seriously doubt anyone can now believe anything PoM produces in future. Mark has deliberately scuttled his ship on the rocks and put his right hand into his vest. Won’t get fooled again.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Indeed, and looking back at the site I didn’t really learn much of anything. Mark hemmed and dodged when I showed him that his photo-analysis was way below par, and otherwise not much new information was to be had. I still don’t know why he was interested in Eva Peron at all, except as a “time-waster”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I suspect he was taking the p*ss or didn’t care anymore, i.e. he knew project “PoM” was winding down. Perhaps the hit pieces on Mathis were the whole point of PoM — everything was leading up to that moment? And it fell flat on its face 😀

        Either way, there is no excuse for the Peron nonsense — he was bulls*tting his readers, and he knew it. I would not give Mark T. the benefit of the doubt anymore.

        Like

  7. Mark has put up a new “piece” at PoM now stating implicitly that he can’t handle comments the dissent from the writers’ positions anymore. He labels opposition as “Team Mathis”, which I find hilarious since he’s the one who actually met Mathis, who actually spent four days at a physics conference – when physics is “above his pay grade”. And yet he paid to learn something that he cannot and did not learn. It should have been me at that conference – I was just too busy with work that summer and couldn’t make it out and about for a week. No, I’m not jealous. I’ve just read and poured over the material, done physics simulations with some of it myself, and actually want to keep learning more.

    Those guys are not interested in learning, and have admitted they aren’t capable. Miles’ papers aren’t hard to read – not any of them. It would seem that literacy is also above their pay grade.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Sure and we are all waiting behind the closed door, broiling as we wait to re-enter his blog’s comment section. There is something much more going on at PoM than just Mark loosing his sanity, I can feel it in my bones. As much as I felt something unpleasant before shortly joining PoM only to be kicked out for rubbing Mark’s fur the wrong way.

      Liked by 5 people

  8. I find it amusing that out of all the recent criticisms of Miles from the Tokarski camp there is not one word of Miles’ writings that have been challenged. Not one thing that Miles has written that is claimed to be false.

    Tokarski and “K Starr” admit that they don’t understand Miles’ scientific writings so they couldn’t very well critique any of that and I see no mention at all of Miles’ papers on art. That leaves his papers on fake people and events but they don’t even mention one specific criticism of anything found in that work either.

    It’s also ironic that they are trying to deconstruct Miles by using what they perceive to be Miles’ own methods.

    In any case I’m glad Tokarski has now shown us his true colors and confirmed who he works for. I think it’s safe to say that Miles’ readership is probably of above average intelligence but I guess Tokarski must think we’re all idiots.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. One big question is: why now? A fumble is more relevant at your own 10-yard line in the 4th qtr and you are still down 7-points with 120 secs to go than if you lose the ball at the start of the second half at the 50-yd line.

      Like

        1. Thx for the update. I did not read yours but find your theory about Rossaert interesting. Also, let me just add for the record that the RZ paper is poorly written and structured. On the other hand, I find K.Starr piece impactful whereas RZ, unnecessary.

          Like

  9. I sussed Tokarski and his mates out when they attacked Judy Wood. I repeatedly asked them what flags had they all raised and all they had was a feeling in their gut. They then rounded on me citing my username as evidence of my agenda. This after me having the gall to offer on the ground info about the Manchester Bomb.
    The only thing that surprised me was their connection to Intel. I assumed they were just your typical middle class egocentric numptys…
    I recommend that we move away from personality cults ( that are easily attacked ) and refer to the body of work, over the author. Mathisian physics rolls off the tongue quite well.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I didn’t see the on the ground info you offered about the Manchester bomb. Would you mind linking to it or repeating it?

      Like

      1. OK… So the first thing to know is that my name is Danny Malpas, born and raised in Manchester, UK but now live 30 miles away in Bradford. I work in the field of demolition which got me interested in 9/11. I am only concerned with the discovery of truth and i have very little time for bullshit. I have been sifting through the shite for about 15 years and my cynical conclusion is that EVERYTHING is bullshit. (MM’s work is the first thing i have ever come across that didn’t fall into this category). I seem to be in the company of kindered brothers and one day i hope to contribute in some kind of meaningful way.
        Round the time of the Manchester Bomb Bollox, i had only just been introduced to POM (through MM’s paper on POM.)(Funnily, this is how i was introduced to you and Vexman.). Experience (and a cursory glance at media coverage) points us to the conclusion that this was a totally manufactured event/psy op and no bombs went off and nobody died but i felt there might be a little more to the story.
        One of the victims/crisis actors was a middle aged woman whose daughter was taught by my wife at a school 30 miles away in Leeds. My wife was actually her form tutor. The day after the event, her daughter came into school and was then later allowed to go home (perhaps to identify her mother’s body). I am fairly sure the daughter attended the concert with her mom but i cant remember. She took a week off school but would spend lunchtimes with her friends in the common room, and then returned back to school as normal.
        This story has many problems but it would seem that you cannot just hire crisis actors. You must hire their families who must all live the rest of their lives protecting the lie.
        I thought this thread was worth pursuing and discussing because i still do not really know WHAT happened that night, if anything at all did happen.
        Because this story didn’t fit POM’s narrative, they instantly got personal with me and accused me of links to intel. Because it was a multi-pronged attack, i lost interest and moved on. I found many other interesting anomolies that confused things further but i would need more time and space to describe it all clearly. Also, it was a long time ago… Sorry

        Like

      2. OK… So the first thing to know is that my name is Danny Malpas, born and raised in Manchester, UK but now live 30 miles away in Bradford. I work in the field of demolition which got me interested in 9/11. I am only concerned with the discovery of truth and i have very little time for bullshit. I have been sifting through the shite for about 15 years and my cynical conclusion is that EVERYTHING is bullshit. (MM’s work is the first thing i have ever come across that didn’t fall into this category). I seem to be in the company of kindered brothers and one day i hope to contribute in some kind of meaningful way.
        Round the time of the Manchester Bomb Bollox, i had only just been introduced to POM (through MM’s paper on POM.)(Funnily, this is how i was introduced to you and Vexman.). Experience (and a cursory glance at media coverage) points us to the conclusion that this was a totally manufactured event/psy op and no bombs went off and nobody died but i felt there might be a little more to the story.
        One of the victims/crisis actors was a middle aged woman whose daughter was taught by my wife at a school 30 miles away in Leeds. My wife was actually her form tutor. The day after the event, her daughter came into school and was then later allowed to go home (perhaps to identify her mother’s body). I am fairly sure the daughter attended the concert with her mom but i cant remember. She took a week off school but would spend lunchtimes with her friends in the common room, and then returned back to school as normal.
        This story has many problems but it would seem that you cannot just hire crisis actors. You must hire their families who must all live the rest of their lives protecting the lie.
        I thought this thread was worth pursuing and discussing because i still do not really know WHAT happened that night, if anything at all did happen.
        Because this story didn’t fit POM’s narrative, they instantly got personal with me and accused me of links to intel. Because it was a multi-pronged attack, i lost interest and moved on. I found many many other interesting anomolies that confused things further but i would need more time and space to describe it all clearly. Also, it was a long time ago…

        Like

    2. Indeed, Mathisian physics has been the working name for a bit now. I rather enjoy his writing and his science, even though I don’t think Miles likes me very much (his response emails are always curt and very short) and imagine he can’t stand my art. Doesn’t matter. I’m a student and I’m going to continue studying. And it seems like that’s the distinction here – the PoM clowns in question aren’t studying at all, and even failed the test using Miles’ own methods.

      Like

      1. Jared — from what I can tell his responses are curt (almost to the point of sounding rude) to just about everyone. I can certainly vouch for that. I can only imagine what his mailbox looks like — I wouldn’t it put it past Intel to flood him with hate-mail that is strung together by an algorithm. Just endless amounts of hate mail that all generally sounds the same and uses the same ad-hom attacks.

        I would bet he originally answered all of his emails earnestly, but after several years of dealing with the dregs of the net lambasting him for having an opinion and not being ashamed for it, he began posting very quick responses to combat the trolls (and spooks) waste his time.

        -Russell Tropinsky

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Agreed, and I completely understand his curt replies – especially since we’ve never met and he didn’t know me from Adam when I first started sending him my physics vids. He is a bit more talkative now though, after this mess that Tokarski made. I don’t really care if he likes me or not as long as we can keep doing physics stuff together, and as long as he helps me present his theories as accurately as possible. I actually like the guy despite himself. He’s a lot like me in the polemics, though I’m more social and much more ruthless generally. I’m also less busy and have more free time, so there is that.

          I’m sure his inbox is just a nightmare.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. MM had his Geneaology info not available at the free Geneaolgy sites. All the individuals (dead or alive, most rich and famous) he has researched using this methodhave had their info available at the free sites by his own admission.
    I find it very curious HIS Genealogy was (and still is) not available for free. I would appreciate your thoughts on this FACT. Also, whatever you think of the man and his work, there is not plausible deniability regarding the indication he is (and can be) connected, don’t you think?

    Like

    1. Nobody’s genealogy is available at the free sites unless someone does genealogical research and posts it there/makes it public. If you want to do your own original research you have to pay to access the databases and resources of the paid sites. But then, as far as I’m aware, you are free to make your findings public. What we read on the ‘free’ version of those sites is the research that other people have done and published. So apparently whoever did that research has not posted it. I don’t really find that suspicious at all. They probably don’t want anyone checking their work.

      Liked by 3 people

  11. A has met B (in person 2015).
    A has ALSO met C (in person 2016).

    A = Mark Tokarski
    B = Vexman
    C = Miles Mathis

    What are the odds in real life? What gives?

    Like

    1. What is this, Ahmed? I never met Tokarski, so much about your attempt. Which odds are you then looking at I wonder?

      And why did you come here to trash my blog with nothing substantial? This was a nice warning.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Vexman,
        No unnecessary trolling. It is Ahmad not “Ahmed”. Even a letter is important. Would you consider a smoking gun? I have a pict of MT and MM together but you do not want my input and call it “thrashing” that’s fine. I’m outta here. Best to all of you.

        Like

        1. So what if Tokarski was in Ljubljana? I told you we never met in person, so why do you insist with this nonsense? Why else are you trying to seed doubt and disturb this thread with irrelevant issue than to troll? As far as I know, that is what trolls do. Trash other people’s blogs, just like you do, Ahmad. And so what if you have a picture of Tokarski with Mathis, or anybody else for that matter? What is it suppose to prove anyway?

          Liked by 4 people

      2. Perhaps you did not meet the guy under that name when you did met him… perhaps Paul Marshall rings a bell? Let me say it another way: Would you say you have not met or chatted to any american tourist living in Slovenia, ever?

        Like

        1. Just what is the matter with you, Ahmad? Can’t you bloody understand that Tokarski and I never met? And who the hell is Paul Marshall? What in the world are you fantasizing about? Drop this nonsense or I’m banning you, my last warning.

          Like

          1. Not a problem. I am leaving for good. I just advise you don’t exercise that power you have on a poor commenter like me. Don’t become what you hate. Let me remind you your own words some time back then at POM:”I was at cluesforum site, actually, went there more or less to find some poeple, that would be saying/debating/discussing anything in connection to Mathis. Came there using search engine, can’t remember the terms used. It was fun and sometimes meaningful there until I got banned for realizing it’s limited-hangout fog-distributing site…”

            Like

            1. You said that twice already, yet here you are. I’m not exercising no power yet as blog owner, I only warned you twice to stop with that trolling nonsense. You were insisting with the suggestion I met Tokarski, which is a bald lie. I told you to stop yet you continued, what else were you expecting me to do?

              Now you go even further, suggesting what exactly? That my blog has become / is somehow similar to that spooky CF ? Am I distributing fog around here? Did I ban anybody yet?

              Anybody is welcome to discuss relevant topics here, either comply or be gone.

              Liked by 2 people

  12. Have you checked out Straightfromthedevilsmouth blog? Go for a good laugh. Read the last post he wrote. He now believes in Trump and an entity named QAnon. Quite remarkable.

    Like

  13. The name of the author of the hit piece(Robert Zheruncle) Miles Mathis states is an Intel joke. I believe he is correct in a literal sense. Bob Zheruncle…Bob’s your uncle?, an English saying meaning ” you are all set” or “there you have it”, it was originally attributed to Lord Salisbury. I did not see this point specifically mentioned and do not know how widely this saying is used outside the UK. I cannot help but feel that this attack on MM was also designed to hit his true allies as an added bonus sowing dissension.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. The clue in the name Bob Zherunkel is to do with Arthur Balfour, he of the balfour declaration. He got his job because Bob was his uncle. The balfour declaration tells us why Britain attacked the Ottoman Empire (If they even did) and alludes to the beginning of the Ashkenazi military occupation of the holy lands also known as the nakba. My guess is that Mr Zherunkel is either Israeli or jewish. It is probably Tokarski himself..

      Liked by 6 people

  14. As to the “Why now?” question I was thinking it might be due to Miles’ recent paper on flat earth dated 4/16. They’ve invested a lot of energy into FE and there is even an international FE conference coming up later this year. I think the FE project is their last hope of defeating the rising awareness of space fakery so defending it is a priority for them.

    I think it’s no coincidence that YouTube recently kicked off the legitimate space program skeptics leaving only the FE spooks. And, Simon Shack’s recent TACOS (full of beans) theory is also meant to distract away from space program scrutiny.

    I think the space program hoax is hugely important to them and they’re terrified it might all come down.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yeah, and I’m of the opinion that Shack, his Tacos fantasy, and even that Gaia person are just out there to muddy the waters, now. I know several other really spooky people who are generally pretty decent pals, online, but nothing like that horseshit. I’m not one to be creeped out and at first I just assumed they were stupid people. But nobody is that stupid. Not really. You can’t be that stupid and still find your way into these types of forums. And yes, that’s nothing but an ad hom attack since those people deserve nothing more.

      “Those types” really just seem to be around to siphon away and distract. Doing line-by-line rebuttals in these cases isn’t necessary: “Wrong.” does just fine, across the board. I was a bit misdirected when Gaia attacked Shack on his/her site, but after all that his/her rebuttals to me were just infantile. And in both cases, they’d read none or just a couple of Mathis’s papers and had no retorts on-topic.

      At this point if someone hasn’t read his papers, their critique simply isn’t valid. Fuck ’em. That’ll just be my default leading rebuttal from here on out, seems like.

      Liked by 3 people

  15. Could you all please “Shut up and research” and please, oh please, post more interesting things? I think MM has got it right and I hope he’ll waste 0s more of his time on this stupid childish dispute.
    I use to be a lurker but had to say the damn thing, and I hope the fact that I wrote in this particular post don’t mislead you to think this one is more interesting to me than the ones I don’t comment. In fact I just skimmed through it. In general, number of comments is not that good to measure the quality of a post unless your aim is to make people waste their time.
    Just keep on and ignore the distractions!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Too busy “shutting up and calculating” right now to do much research. Joking. Feynman is an even bigger flop flop than these phonies at PoM. But I feel you on the spirit you meant it in – and am working on some shit about the Korean War that might be fun. Or boring, if you don’t care about Korea at all. I just happen to have been born in Seoul so I’m often drawn to the history and culture over there.

      Meanwhile I’m stuck in a physics limbo, unable to get my stacked spin simulator to work properly so I can ramp up to the nucleon level. It’s fine mechanically, I just suck at Maya’s animation tools so it’s quite a struggle.

      Got any time to waste helping on projects like these? I’ve got a laundry list.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Well, you’re welcome anyway! I haven’t contributed much yet but there’s some good stuff in the works. Thanks for the reply.

          Like

    2. @ Roberto,
      You have a point there but we do need to let off some steam from time to time to keep our heads clear. 🙂

      Like

      1. I notice Roberto didn’t respond to my request for help. Not a red flag or anything, but a simple, “No, thanks.”, would have done fine. 😉

        Like

  16. I was expecting to see more discussion after Mathis would make an reply. Instead, the comments were closed and he put another post before Mathis replied. The second post started again with a funny picture of Mathis, which is not a respectable approach. Josh probably responded to many points from the 2nd post (I still have to read the post made by Josh, I only skimmed his post), so I will not go over how weak was the 2 post.

    However, I have to say that the first post made me think again about the PSAT story. Here is my previous comment about this story (on mathisdiscussionboard)
    “I wanted to ask Mathis in an e-mail about the PSAT story. In 1980 Daniel Lowen found an error on the PSAT test http://mathlair.allfunandgames.ca/saterrors.php. Somebody mentioned the story of Lowen on a forum thread that was about Mathis. I read that thread probably last year or 2 years ago but I never asked him in an e-mail. In a way the story matches with the image of a man who finds mistakes in the established math or science. Why did he put this story on his bio? Like I said, some people already checked that fact. It would most likely turn people that are aware of that story away from him. I never mentioned this story in my comments I made at POM, but the story remained in my mind as an unsolved mystery. Was this a test to see if people check his info?”

    After the comment, I actually found some people that used that against Mathis many times. For example see the comments here https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/conspiracy-theories/ (I don’t care about the person behind that website, if he believes Mathis is insane why waste the energy by creating a website about Mathis, makes no sense). What do you make of this PSAT story? It was Daniel Lowen or Mathis? This is not something insignificant, since it was already used against him.

    Like

    1. Calgacus, have you written to him asking about this? Here is what he wrote on his bio: “He should be remembered by the takers of the PSAT, 1980, for questioning one of the answers on the math portion. The PSAT admitted its error and was forced to change all scores nationally.”

      Now, after reading the link you gave to the allfunandgames website, and then following the links there to some old NYTimes articles about it, I have a hypothesis: many students wrote in about that question, but only one of them was credited with pushing the college board to change their decision. Why did they credit Daniel Lowen? Perhaps because his appeal was the most persuasive and the one they really took seriously. Why? One of the articles says:

      “[Daniel] and his father, Douglas J. Lowen, a mechanical engineer who works for Rockwell International on the space shuttle, sat down to work out the problem mathematically.

      ”My dad tried to prove that I was wrong but he couldn’t,” he said. ”Then he came up with two different mathematical proofs that I was right.”

      “The father then telephoned Educational Testing Service and followed up with a letter. The testmakers studied the material and notified the student the following week that his score would be raised.”

      Nowhere does it say that others wrote in. But on the other hand it doesn’t say that nobody appealed. Given the large numbers of smart students taking the test, it seems reasonable to assume that more than one caught the mistake. But only one had a dad who sent in a mathematical proof proving the question was wrong. Note also that his dad was well-connected working for Rockwell.

      And although what Miles wrote seems to imply that his appeal was the reason they admitted their error, if you read it more carefully I think you’ll see that it doesn’t actually say that. I agree it is sort of implied. You can make of that what you want, but if I’m right then I wouldn’t call it a lie. Note also that it says he “should be” remembered. It doesn’t say he “is” remembered. It says “should be,” which could be taken to mean that he never got any credit for questioning the answer but should have. Of course you could ask him and try to end this useless speculation.

      Like

      1. I finally sent an e-mail. I told him that he should make an addendum in the “My Genealogy” paper. This is not something that is irrelevant since it was already used against him. Your reply is reasonable, but he needs to clarify the story himself.
        I still have to read your response on your blog. Maybe I will make additional comments on your blog regarding this situation. Right now I can only say that “gold is tested by fire”.

        Like

  17. I decided to open comments on my original post defending Miles. You are all welcome to chime in over there, as well.

    Like

  18. Just had a quick peek back at PoM to seen if they had recanted (a tall ask) or perhaps even grown up. Now they’re insinuating Miles is a latter day Lewis Carroll, and they’re not on about his writing ability. I think Miles has mentioned that Intel uses pedo-blackmail to blackwash people, PoM are clearly following their paymasters eagerly.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Jared, I wasn’t online for a few days. We had a long weekend in Germany and I’m avoiding computers then. Therefore I’ll answer now. First “ass” means ace in German. The term Mathe-ass was invented by Sim-On Shack in one of his emails to me. I intended to write “Mathe-ace”, which is as funny IMO. No need to get picky for you.
    Second: here is what I asked Miles Mathis after he published his Pi=4 paper. Maybe you can answer my questions, MM simply stated I don’t get it, which is the simplest form of an immunization tactic:

    “The distances of planets in relation to their sizes are so big, that we can assume a centre of gravity there, handle them as geometrical points and ignore their cycloid spin as a force factor. Besides the Earth for instance turns around 365 times a year having about 40.000 km in circumference during a full year making some 14.959.802.296 km around the Sun which makes the cycloid factor void (Earths way around the sun is 1000 times bigger then Earths cycloid movement). An Olympic runner does not fulfill a cycloid either.His right arm has a bit longer way to move than his left arm, but that’s also no force factor. His chest circumference is about 1m, he runs 400m and is not even fulfilling a one single cycloid. The main factor in the curve is intertia not the spin of the body.
    You (wrongly) calculated PI=4 or 8r, which by the way is the square extent (of the square around the circle). So you simply suggest, the circumference is equal to the square extent if the circle is rolling? Is this some sort of quadrature of the circle solution? 😉
    In your paper on calculus you analyze Newton and Leibnitz and ignore Gauss completely? Why is that? Then you introduce a new syntax based on distances (or deltas) coming to the same conclusion as Leibnitz or Newton but to what purpose?
    The syntax introduced by Leibnitz is not a simple equation therefore the operation of making dx zero on the left side is perfectly valid. dx is not a variable in an equation. It’s an operation instruction. Its geometrical pendant is moving the secant to the tangent reducing the x side of the triangle.
    That also was your main error in your “stairway” picture where you reduce DC making 4 small stairs instead of considering the gradient of the curve. If you split a 100$ note into 100 1$ coins, you’ll still have 100$. That’s obvious. That’s what you do with the stairs in your PI paper. That’s not differential calculus.”
    Why invent something new and call it PI which is already reserved and well known to be something else? Ain’t that misleading in its purest form?

    Like

  20. as for the animation above, maybe you can answer me following questions:
    1. why is it put between +-4 on the y axis?
    2. Why not use a circle with the radius of 1 (unit circle)?
    3. why is it not rolling between 0 and 1 on the y axis?
    4. is the dot on the other side of the circle, across to the projected dot not counterbalancing the forces of the first dot? We are talking of a mass here, no? Every mass has a center of gravity. Why not take the dot in the middle of the circle for observation? Planets rotate around their center of gravity as if the entire mass was centered there, no?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Because that’s what we’re measuring.
      Because that’s not what we’re measuring.
      Because that’s not what we’re measuring.
      No.

      Like

  21. Kevin S. on POM answered to MM’s reply to his critics on him and it looks way more convincing to me than that weak sulk MM is giving us now. Poor MM, nobody likes him anymore.

    Like

    1. So the 1,300+ comments, almost all supportive and celebratory of Miles, from hundreds of different people to you equals “nobody”. This is consistent with your other complete failures in math, physics, and every other topic we’ve touched on lately. You can’t count, you can’t read a graph, you can’t understand circular motion, you don’t know what Pi is, and you jab wildly at someone’s popularity as if that had any bearing at all.

      In short, you’re useless and unintelligent. Go back to PoM where you belong – you fit in very well over there.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. see, you also cannot answer my arguments. Is it because of lack of education perhaps? You never learned what differential calculus is and what it is good for? I’m having a master degree in Engineering and I understand the math I’m writing about. You obviously don’t. As for Miles he’s falling into insignificance. Won’t take him long.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I answered all your questions. I apologize if you’re malliterate and unable to read them, perhaps I’m not writing monosyllabically enough for you to understand.

      Kinda funny how all of a sudden you have degrees in things you knew nothing about in any of our previous conversations. I’m impressed! Technical college? Honorary degrees, like Neil Tyson has? Good work, spook. You earned some instant degrees but still can’t count to four.

      Miles’ defense thread has over 2,000 comments now. Obviously you don’t know what numbers are, what “insignificance” means, what “obviously” means, or even how to find your own Shift key to begin a sentence.

      You’re an intellectual hobbit.

      Like

      1. well actually you didn’t answer any on my questions which is an answer in itself, but one that I already knew. You have no idea what Miles is talking about in his scientific papers. Vexman still didn’t find the time to give me answers either. Never mind that too. I just looked this defense thread over by Josh. The great MM writes comment after comment there. Why is that? He never commented anywhere beyond his own papers. Never lowered himself to us common folks. Looks like most of the >1000 comments come from MM himself. He must have a lot of time now, since he’s locked home. That seems to be true.

        Like

        1. Müller, let me tell you why I still feel reluctant to spend my time answering you. I figured two things: there’s an extensive explanation I did which you can find at CF, under the Pi=4 thread. There is also an extended input from Josh there under his “daddie_oh” (I think) nick. I could go there and copy/paste it all here, but refuse to do so as much as you refuse to address my repeated arguments about the same subject. To remind you, we did converse about this before.

          The second far more important thing is that I find your understanding of the issue in question erringly similar to that of Simon Hytten (a.k.a. Shack). But I digress here.

          The issue in question can be found in Miles’ 1st paper on Pi:

          “”It is true that in one sense the circumference is a length. In common everyday language, a circle describes a certain length. We can make a circle with a piece of string and then straighten it out and measure it. But in straightening out the string we have applied a pretty complex action to it. The straight string and the curved string aren’t physically or mathematically equivalent.”

          from here: http://milesmathis.com/pi.html

          Now, in lame words: moving around the line that describes a curvature makes you change two positions: on both x- and y- axis. Can you understand that fact in comparison to moving along a straight line, where you change your position only on x-axis? It is of course understood that we are here comparing a straight line at 0 degrees inclination.

          That is a crucial argument to comprehend before proceeding any further on kinematic issue of Pi. There are others, but I’ll leave them out to avoid any further confusion. There is one thing though I completely agree with though, the kinematic Pi requires a new terminology.

          That all made me decide not to answer any further questions you posted as most of them become irrelevant once you’re on the right path of understanding the issue in question.

          Like

          1. what your “lame words” describe is the same movement a dot will make if moved diagonally back and forth across a square. There isn’t any kinematic Pi. Why abuse a geometrical constant, known for ages for something completely different? Lack of words from great MM? He claims to be a poet and cannot deliver a better word for his theory as “PI”? As I told Miles, the way the Earth makes within a year around the sun is 1000 times bigger than its cycloid way during that time. The distances are so big, we can assume geometrical points. The cycloid factor becomes irrelevant then. Miles’ mathematical explanation is bollocks. If you approximate a curve you use the hypotenuse of the triangle not its sides. He then takes differential calculus and uses it as an equation which makes no sense at all. Miles’ equation says that a rolling circle has the same circumference as the square around that circle. Makes this any sense to you? You’re still not answering my questions, you’re talking around them. Why in this animation of yours is the circle put between -4 and +4 on the y-axis, why not use a unit circle rolling on the x-axis, why observing only one point on the surface, etc. It’s all misleading without any serious content. All “experiments” Miles mentioned, all silly youtube videos demonstrate the influence of inertia if anything and not some “kinematic situation”. Inertia is completely ignored in Miles Pi papers. Why is that?

            Like

            1. “Miles’ equation says that a rolling circle has the same circumference as the square around that circle. Makes this any sense to you?”

              See? I told you we have a huge issue in question. But it concerns understanding of this issue properly. Miles never said that. Neither did I or anybody else who understands kinematic Pi.

              A point on circle’s curvature (!) travels a distance of 8r(adius) while the circle completes one full turn, but only when then circle is in motion (=kinematic situation). I never claimed I can travel around the curves on rectangular path, since I don’t. The only difference is that now I know how to calculate the distance I traveled while in curves. So you can sleep at night better, Müller, I have no issues with your beliefs as long as you leave me alone. Having said that, I’m done with my attempts to help you understand anything.

              Liked by 2 people

          2. just one more thing and then I’m done here: Miles claims to explain with his Pi=4 theory some crude “observations” supposedly made by Nasa or even some quantum mechanics problems. All those things are fakes. Nasa does not fly into space (satellites do exists but that is a different matter), quantum mechanics is as absurd as the relativity theory is. Yet still Miles Mathis delivers a theory to explain their problems?
            Simon Shack does the same with his Tycho-theory. He based his Tycho-model among other things on the existence of double star systems (Sirius) which only very few claim to observe. You can for instance make pictures of the ISS even showing some details, I did that myself using the P900 Nikon from my son. You will not see Sirius as a double star no matter how expensive your equipment may be. Yet still Simon rejects pictures of the ISS and accepts “pictures” of Sirius as a double star? All this is Flat Earth in different clothes to me. Its junk science and only works if somebody never learned any higher mathematics. No offense. My background is in electrical engineering by the way even though I work for big banks in Frankfurt now. I know what I’m talking about. They don’t. And finally as for satellites, I’ve watched the ISS many times, I’ve seen Iridium flares many times, I’m using satellite TV since the 80-s, so satellites are a real thing to me. No so Nasa and their stories. Now I’m done here. With kindly regards.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Satellites exist but yet nobody flies into space.

              You’re an electrical engineer but yet you work for big banks.

              That’s all we really need to know about you. You’ve outed yourself.

              Like

            2. just for clarification: I have a master degree in electrical engineering but I went into software development in the 90-s. The banks in Frankfurt just pay way better than factories. Once you have a serious degree it opens many doors to other areas and possibilities. If you’re willing to learn of course. Vexman, you’re still talking around my simple questions. Miles wrote in his Pi=4 paper I quote: “Pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference and the diameter. I have proved that when motion is involved, that ratio is 4”.
              If you take the unit circle with diameter of 1, its circumference is simple Pi, which is 3.14. The square around that circle has the circumference of 4×1=4. The quote from Miles’ paper says exactly that if the circle is rolling its circumference becomes equal to the square around it. The animation of yours does not use the unit circle because than it would be obvious that the conclusion you’re drawing is wrong.

              Like

              1. Müller, I’m not talking around your simple questions. I refuse to answer them as they become irrelevant once we come to understanding of the issue in question. I thought you said you’ll be gone with your previous post, which by your new post just got extended. Interesting.

                See? I told you Miles knows what static Pi is. It’s defined as the ratio of the circumference and the diameter. You then continue with your explanation, where you took static circle with a square around trying to follow what Miles implied for kinematic situation. The issue in question is there, right in front of your nose. When we put the circle in motion, there is a point on its circumference that we need to look at and follow its path. We can observe the path of this point in motion here:

                https://www.geogebra.org/m/fVPsKXfk

                Do you see any squares in this demo? No, because the point follows the path, which is described by its true mechanics of circle’s motion. This path is described as a cycloid, which is well known fact for ages. So we need to invent nothing new here, do we? Theory says that the length of cycloid’s line = arc length = 8r.

                So following the observed mechanics, logic and theory when in kinematic situation:

                8r=2rPi
                Pi=4

                You see how simple this was? While it’s true that the circumference of a square around the circle = 4 ; if r=1, as you suggest, we’re talking apples and oranges here. You still want to talk about the static circumferences where in fact motion is applied.

                In other words, you are focused at the wrong point. Follow the point on circle’s curvature and you’ll understand what this is all about. It is as simple as that if you are honest. Considering your degree, this should be a piece of cake for you.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. General idea (Don’t know, if it’s correct): Make an animation (whoever can, or in your mind), that shows the circle boxed in in a square, of side-length equal to the circle’s diameter. Mark one point where the circle touches the square (in the middle of a side), then the circle starts rolling, folding out the square into a line and colorizing the part of the line it has traveled over. (In an animation like this it would have first to roll to one end of the line, then back over this bit to the other side, so this half diameter isn’t counted twice) When the the point has colorized the whole line length, then it would have used color for 4 diameters? Is that it? (I haven’t thought this through yet, just looking for a better way to visualize this. Tired, So see y’all,maybe)

                  Liked by 1 person

            3. Jared, you’ve just outed yourself as flat earther. Satellites are simply shot into space like bullets. A rocket engine accelerates after launch to a certain maximum speed. If it reaches the so called “first cosmic speed” it will start orbiting. If it reaches the second cosmic speed, it will leave the Earth’s gravity field. No humans necessary there. That’s how I learned that when I was a child and that’s how it obviously works today, except you didn’t learned that the way I did.

              Like

            4. Just for clarification, I have a PhD in Detecting Bullshit, and let me tell you, Mueller: you need to work on your technique if you hoping to make a living as a bullshit artist.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. That’s not how orbits work at all. To achieve an orbit, acceleration greater than the body’s gravity is required – and at a vector perpendicular to that body’s gravity. That’s what the “gravity turn” is, in rocketry. You can’t just go straight up at any velocity and achieve an orbit. Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of mechanics and knowledge on yet another topic.

              I’m patiently waiting for you to get one thing right. Me, a “Flat Earther”? I’ve never once said anything about the Earth being flat. You can’t straw man me, son. You aren’t even able to answer or insult me. You flail away at topics you know nothing about and then accuse others of being what you are yourself.

              Pathetic. You’re a waste of taxpayers’ stolen money, spook.

              Liked by 1 person

    1. He is incredibly annoying. He hijacks almost every thread on this page with his argumentative twaddle.

      Like

    1. ok Jared, one last time, ok. Velocity and acceleration are both attributes of the same law of nature. You can’t separate them. There is no velocity without acceleration. There is no constant speed in nature. Acceleration always comes with a mass. Only a mass can and have to be accelerated. That’s why the relativity theory is crap. Light has no mass therefore it has no speed at all it only has a range and intensity. A rocket has to accelerate its own entire mass to reach a certain speed. This mass will be reduced as the engine burns the fuel. That’s the content of the so called rocket equation and was known before NASA hired von Braun who then realized that flying to the Moon is impossible because of the rocket equation. Then the narrative changed and the cosmic speed wasn’t mentioned anymore. If you shoot a bullet, it will also be accelerated but only for a very short period of time. When the bullet leaves the barrel it already has reached its maximum velocity and can only gets slower. The inertia of the mass is the reason it reaches a certain distance depending of its mass, form, air movement, angle, etc. The same applies for rockets. They get launched, reach their maximum velocity, the engine gets off and the inertia of their masses pushes them to a certain altitude. Is it high enough they start to orbit, is it higher than that, they leave the Earths gravity, etc. That’s the definition of the 3 cosmic speeds. It is not that difficult, isn’t it? You can observe that on fireworks, they accelerate for a short period of time, then they still fly higher for a while even though the rocket is not burning anymore and then they start to fall down and explode. Except satellites reach an altitude where they start orbiting instead of falling down.
      Miles’ weird theories, Simon’s Tycho, David Icke’s reptilians and Flat Earth belong to the same category of psyops intending to distract and defame.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I remember operating at a Third Grade level as well, Muller. It was a simpler time, when life was grand and nothing had to make sense and I never bothered to study anything or read anything scientific but comic books and National Geographic and Popular Science. Dinosaurs ARE AWESOME!

        But you, sir, are a failure with each sentence. You don’t know what a velocity is, you don’t know what an acceleration is, you don’t know what mass is, you don’t know what light is, you know nothing of rocketry or astrophysics, and you don’t even believe that your own eyes work. Which means you don’t believe in reading or words or pixels either. You’re downloading all these conversations directly into your blind brain somehow using the same magic you believe controls physics. The light entering your eyes isn’t real since it has no mass and therefore cannot collide with your eye receptor cells. It also cannot power plants through photosynthesis since it has no mass and thus no energy, according to your theory. So you don’t believe in plants either. Nor do you believe in the sun, electricity, magnetism, or anything else.

        You don’t believe in anything which would include yourself and so… Poof! You no longer exist. You’re done here, son. And anywhere else you post. You have ceased to be, per your own paltry, toddleresque theory.

        Nice knowin’ ya, spookycakes.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Hahahaha. Now you’ve given yourself away. All of this has just been a pathetic attempt to group Miles’ work in the same category with FE, Simon’s Taco (full of beans model) and even, some how some way, reptilians. The problem is that although you are trying desperately hard, you aren’t landing any punches. Do you know what that’s called? It’s called flailing. You’re totally flailing Mr. Mueller. GTFO.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Well done gentlemen. A great teaching moment here. You can use this for a case study in shooing away the spooks. Instead of bug-off it can be called spook-off.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. I’d like to reiterate how important it is that Piece Of Mindful’s anti-Mathis hit-pieces failed to address any of the points Mathis has actually made in his hundreds of papers. The only rebuttals I’ve ever seen to any argument Mathis has ever made, are:

    discussions of Pi where they (purposefully) ignore the kinematic stipulation
    a rebuttal to his claim that the Buddy Holly tribute bandmembers, as minors, couldn’t easily be driven across state lines

    Pretty weak. I mean, of all the things I’ve read by Mathis, maybe I don’t agree with 1%? But generally only when the speculation gets a little too deep for me to follow. I can’t so much say that he’s wrong in those cases, as much as I feel out of my depth.

    If someone did my genealogy, they’d find close relations to military bureaucracy and Jewish people and a few spooky folks, and a distant connection to General Robert E. Lee. But I’m just a middle-class schlub who has no secrets to tell. I suspect that a few people I knew growing up were juiced into something, but it’s just a sneaking suspicion I’ve had.

    So when PoM tried to take Miles down by showing that some of his relatives might have been upper-middle class or Jewish, it looked even more mundane than my personal experience, which is pretty mundane indeed.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This has been my experience almost entirely across the board, be it on science or physics forums, tech forums, social media (egads!), or any other platform when discussing Miles’ theories or ideas. I have yet to encounter an actual rebuttal, out of thousands of “debates”. Maybe tens of thousands. My bias is present sure, so a neutral outsider might see an “actual” rebuttal where I would not, but that is to say anything close to a rebuttal to me is so weak as to be irrelevant. Usually they don’t even address Mathis at all, and lately I’ve had a stream of comebacks about me being a licensed professional landscaper of all things, which is hilarious.

      But it’s almost always a stream of logical fallacies. At best. Lately it’s mostly been, “Who is this fucking retard?” Which is actually better than anything PoM tried, if you think about it. When dealing with gradeschool minds, except recess-level rebuttals. 🙂

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s