Wednesday, December 8, 2010

David Futrelle - Ugh, Again.

What can I say? I made the horrible mistake of not posting on the MANBOOBZ blog for too long a period of time.

This frustrated and outraged David Futrelle to such an extent, that he was determined to get some attention from me - so he wrote this post.

I am going to write some quotes from it, and offer my insight to them in GREEN (big surprise eh?) I summarize about David Futrelle's post after the analysis.

The article is titled,

"When you assume about Assange, you make an ass of you and me"

My responses to his article are as follows:

Response 1
Response 2
Response 3

The low point of the Men's Rights discussion of the case so far is probably this blog post by ScareCrow, who took a few moments from posting comments here to write up the strangest attack on the accusers yet.


"The low point of the Men's Rights discussion..." I am NOT an MRA Dave.
"who took a few moments from posting here..."
Gee, I'm sorry Dave, did you miss me that much?
The truth is - the Assange bits I wrote up took me at most 25 minutes each.
Allow me to explain: I am an engineer - when I start a code-compile, it can take hours - that is when I dick around on the internet... Lately, work has been busy, and I have done no compiling - that is why I have not been posting lately...

"who took a few moments from posting here..."
Is David an attention whore? Hmmm...


ScareCrow first demands that everyone assume that Assange is "innocent until proven guilty,"

I demanded nothing. I suggested that people think of him as INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. That is the American way. What is your problem?

conveniently forgetting that those of us not actually serving on juries are entitled to come to whatever conclusions we want on criminal cases, for whatever reasons we want.

("entitled" - nice word for it.)
True, but as the title of his post says - do not assume - and he mocks Benny Hill's classic joke about ASSUME = ASS of U and ME. If those not serving on juries are "entitled" to come to whatever conclusions they want - without hearing the evidence presented in court - would they not be "ASSUMING" - see the title of the article.

How come I am not allowed to "speculate" about the character of the two women accusing Assange of rape? Yet, other people are allowed to come to whatever conclusions they want to about any case? Hmmm...


(Heck, we're allowed to disagree with jury verdicts: I have no problem calling OJ a murderer, even though he wasn't convicted as one.)

Take note of this - he is allowed to call O.J. a murderer. This will be important later on.

Still, in this case, given that we have no real evidence to weigh, there's no good reason to assume either guilt or innocence at this point.

I see, but even though a proper jury presented with evidence at the O.J. trial leads 12 people to find him innocent - you still ASSUME that he is guilty - even though you were NOT presented with said evidence - isn't that assuming (see the above point, and the title of the post).
Also, he is either being dishonest, or does not have the facts in. There is evidence - a broken condom, twitters made by Anna, much other stuff - read the articles I link to in those posts, or the ones at the bottom of this post.


It's what ScareCrow does next that's telling:

Yes, I agree - whole-heartedly - it is very telling!

after indignantly telling us not to assume Assange's guilt, he spits forth an extended series of vicious "speculations" about the accusers, based on ... what they look like in a couple of photos he's seen of them. (Dave then quotes my speculations I offered of the two Assange accusers).

The problem: those two women are not accused of anything. Therefore, the innocent until proven guilty rule does not apply.

And be fair Dave, the speculations are not that "vicious"...

And, to be fair to me - after the speculation, I clearly state, "Could I be wrong? OF COURSE." That is in the post.


Yep, that's right: she's a dirty man-hating liar because ... she reminds ScareCrow of women who turned him down turned down other dudes (who definitely weren't him) when he was in college. Absurd, to be sure, but not, in the end, all that different from liberal bloggers and Men's Rightsers who, in the absence of evidence, have projected their own issues onto the case.

Note the cross-out - Dave changed it after I made some comments - Honestly, I thought that was funny. Read my blog - sometimes it was me. However; I witnessed this happening to other men far more often than it happened to me - on campus, in clubs, bars, lounges etc... Occasionally, a woman would make a big scene and start yelling at some poor fool - usually somebody who was conducting themselves in a civil manner. AND - the said "poor fool" never reciprocated the outburst (i.e. he did not become uncivil himself).

  1. I never called her a liar in my description - just a man-hater.
  2. Honestly, she does not look like any of the women who "turned me down".
  3. I was never actually "turned down" - to be "turned down", one must make a proposition - what I got yelled and bitched at for was saying things like, "Hello", "How are you", "Hows it going", etc... Or of course, I got "turned down" after a woman proposed I go on a blind date with her...
  4. I am not a liberal blogger, or an MRA Dave.
  5. Absence of evidence - I have already covered this. The evidence is not only previously mentioned, but also the ridiculous laws in Sweden that constitute rape - see this post (it contains references).

Will I lay off of David Futrelle?

Yes, and that requires some explanation:

To start, read this article:

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

Amen.

So yes, the speculations I offer of those two women are very telling indeed - they reveal a dark secret about me:

I have had a slew of bad experiences with women.


David Futrelle
David Futrelle


WHY? WHO FUCKING KNOWS. I SURE AS HELL DON'T.

Some of the speculations that various MRA sites offer seem to make some sense to me. So get over it Dave.

What will I do about Dave's post bad-mouthing me?

Will I call him a mangina, white knight or even a misandrist?

No. I do not engage in name calling aimed specifically at MEN that berates the character of MEN - there is enough of that going around already. And I certainly will use no male-bashing language created by a bunch of TWIRPS that claim to be against male-bashing (DUR DEE DUR!!!)

Honestly, I feel sorry for this man. He is clearly the victim of extreme self-indoctrination from his sex. He also believes all the feminist garbage about the oppression of women (sigh). Perhaps he was raised by a single mother - and lacked attention from an adult male figure in his life - that would certainly explain his siding with feminist agendas, and craving attention from men (like his whole post baited me into giving him attention)...
His attempts to get attention from me worked - for now - just like a brat throwing a tantrum when he/she isn't getting enough attention.

It won't work again.
David Futrelle:
I pity you fool!


Here are some links to the Assange Fiasco:
Counter Punch

Crime and Federalism

Washingtons Blog

Fire Dog Lake

Glenn Beck

(None of which are credible sources according to Davee)

Just for sh*ts and giggles, I am going to write up a mock story of those two women...

Stay tuned!

No comments:

Post a Comment