Caltrops - Biohazard: Code Veronica





	[quote name="Bill Dungsroman"][quote name="Zseni"][quote name="Fussbett"]I forgot about most of that. Fucking funny shit. Zseni did 95% of it, and is being slightly humble for some reason. Those archived posts are killer, especially lecturing his sidekick, Cyrris (he of the distended face) and wigging out on me. Good times. [/quote] Well, you came up with most of the actual comedy. I just copied and pasted a bunch of stuff. By the way, I can't remember if this: [quote]Why Fakes Are So Bad I do think I had a legitimate complaint in that Dio posted to 'Barborito's Journal' - not 'Dio's Journal' or 'response to Barborito's Journal latest' etc., etc. with an opinion-filled synopsis and a complete fucking up of the way I format these entries. It's obnoxious since I want to parse these in the future and yet leave them open to other people - I would have been thrilled if he had just stuck to the format, then added his argument beneath it in reply post. If you're going to post to Barborito's Journal of References, please provide me the courtesy of keeping opinion out of it, making sure it comes from a reputable source AND IS NOT AN EDITORIAL OR OPINION PIECE OF ANY KIND (I cannot stress this enough), and that it sticks to the format provided. While Palomar's link (Reference #9) is a great link, and one that touches on a topic I'd like to have in my Journal of References (since nearly nobody knows about that and it clearly is important), the source is in fact a little more iffy than I'm 100% comfortable with. I'd still probably post it, but I'd be gritting my teeth while I did so - consider it the minimum threshold. Regarding countpoints - yes, that's an excellent way to handle it. If you spot an excellent rebuttal or shredding of the argument in question (based on FACTS), please post a counterpoint post - doesn't have to be anywhere nearly so formalized since it doesn't use the words 'Barborito's Journal of References' in the title. If you think you might have something but aren't sure - I've been going through the Metafilter links for so long that I have a VERY good knowledge of what sites are tabloids and what aren't, just throw up a normal post. What I'm looking for here is to create a body of links to stories in trustworthy publications (stuff off .gov sites, FOIA papers, mainstream publications, that kind of thing - absolutely no Debka links or that kind of crap) that present facts that most people don't know about and quite frankly may not really want to know about. Ugly truth, but validated ugly truth. Sites like Metafilter, etc. occasionally hit jackpots of these but it's lost in a never-ending sea of angry left-wing rhetorical spouting which turns off a lot of people. I admire the way it's an open community but I'm looking for stylized, formalized fact warfare here.[/quote] is <i>actually</i> Barbie or me impersonating Barbie. It's not like me to think of Metafilter at all, but the rest of this is such blithering self-parody that it suggests the work of higher powers (mine.) Anyone have a clue here? Pro-Barbie: I have no idea what "Debka" is. Pro-Zseni: if I were making a Barbie-esque list of "trustworthy publications" I would have written out that exact list up to "Debka." Pro-Barbie: it's long. I can't keep up a solid Barbie for so long, can I? Pro-me: it's <i>textbook</i> Barbie. "based on FACTS", "I do think..." "while I did so - consider it the minimum threshold." "I admire the way..." Shocking realization: even when I'm not doing a Barbie impression, I sound like Barbie. The difference between his writing style and mine is retardedly minute. I'm going to start posting as Senor Barborito and see if anyone can figure out which one is me and which is him, enragedly replying that he doesn't post here any more. If veronica gets fooled, you guys have to buy me something neat.[/quote]It's 100% Barbie. I remember the post - he used one of the old OMM game bases for the purpose, and this was his opener.[/quote]