A.
No, I present hopefully viable
proposals, with
little in the way of claims so far.
-
-
- Q.
Then are you a big
luzer?
A. At least acknowledge me as an
honest failure.
And one remains a failure until one succeeds. Thus, the
condemnation amounts to a paralytic blanket
criticism that no undertaking
what so ever could ever meet. Should one therefore never strive or risk at
all, much less persevere? How then would one ever hope to succeed?
I could be worse, a quitter. And there's regret.
-
Q.
Are you merely a
pathetic self pitying victim of circumstance,
- or will you
ever admit to your
legendary vast inadequacy?
A. Inadequacy is well
known to be
proportional to the gap between one's current
situation or circumstances plus
power to alter said, and one's desires. And so, manifestly, tautologically,
all frustration is inadequacy to
situational and circumstances. And frustration is all too common in
life.
Counter question: But why press the issue?
- a1) To protect others.
- rebuttal: Others who
should blindly
trust your intimidatingly selfless
motives?
-
- a2) To help you, pathetic wretch, at last to see the light!
- rebuttal: No thank you, then.
For, alas, however well meaning, you are none the less misguided, neither
helpful nor informative, but merely unpleasant.
-
- a3) For amusement at your expense!
- rebuttal: Ah, there's
seeming honesty! And perhaps I should envy you! Because, clearly you at least seem
the more sanguine being a total anal sphincter than so many of us are with
our own various and sundry foibles and shortcomings. Invulnerability must
be wonderful! nevertheless, all such
Poisoning the
Well as
Appeal to Ridicule or
Spite
remain contemptible
Ad Hominem Abusive
propaganda
devices, quite
irrelevant, diversionary
 red
herrings
changing
the subject,
and worse, insidious malignant vehicles of
social mockery and
ostracism.
-
- a4) Self-justifying
Existential
Validation:
As a matter of integrity, negative emotions, by and in and of themselves, justify our
acting
 them
out. As vengeful
pettiness is our only true pleasure in life, we are, therefore, naturally
entitled. By definition, it can only be evil or unjust should we ourselves ever find ourselves on the receiving
end. But our comeuppance will never come, if it never has in all this
time! Indeed, we
have every right to devalue your intrinsic worth, and you deserve it,
because of any of the many other grievous strikes or grudges held against you.
-
- Rebuttal /
Antithesis: Asked and answered.
(You are merely and repetitiously shifting to ground already well covered here
in the various other FAQ entries.)
Q You
are smelly and obnoxious!
A. What an
altruistic public service in disseminating such vital and objective
certainty. Who knows: Someone might run into me on a day when their
sinuses are all stuffed up, and never realize how smelly
I am without
you to tell them so! Likewise, some unwary soul, perhaps roaring drunk,
in a cheerful mood, or merely happy by disposition, might even have a really
great time keeping company with me, and so vitally
need you to alert them as to how obnoxious I am! Everyone needs to know how great and
wonderful you are for defaming, hounding and harassing the likes of
me!
Bravo.
-
- Q.
Look,
just because I persecute others so flagrantly,
doesn't mean I'm an evil windbag
- no better than the other
bullies I imitate...!
- A.
Perish the very thought!
-
-
-
- Q.
Just
who do you think you
are?
-
- A. Think
for yourself, asshole!
- Or would that be too presumptuous?
-
- Surprisingly, jealous rage is well
known to be triggered less by
whatever personal assets, talents, privilege or advantage and
success enjoyed by others,
than by any display of by autonomy as
manifest in such individual expression and striving as sheer
heteronomy inhibits.
-
- And after all, is it not the stance of claimed
authority, especially to actually pass cavalier judgment upon others,
that is truly the most monumentally conceited?
-
-
-
- Q.
Why do you so disregard such feedback as that indeed you only dismiss?
A. I once actually received
two enthusiastically favorable email responses to
CliqueBusters,
one for the wealth of information resources and the other one in
profound personal emotional resonance to my prose. Both, however,
absolutely refused to discuss the central topic of
CliqueBusters,
active nonviolent but even covert action to thwart and expose
bullying. Neither, however, felt howsoever
incited to resort to
soft-flame
tactics at all. People simply read whatever howsoever interests and
influences them.
Regardless of consensus,
catering to whatever silly and picayune rationalizations for thinly veiled
passive hostility will never
truly assuage the
denied
actual
motivation to
heteronymous
tabooistic trepidation, aversion and
cognitively dissonant hostility. Only genuine
criticism,
however frank and harsh, is either worthy or informative to progress,
which is ongoing correction and improvement. Indeed, I often find that
for prose, often only direct attentive proofreading sympathetic to authorial intent, much abets
miscommunication
repair to begin with among anyone interested
to listen in the first place.
-
- "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity." —
Simone Weil
- Q.
Verbose
harsh
critique,
conflict
(on many
levels)
-
and
sexual
content!
A. All guaranteed!
Click here.
Q.
Are you marketing some get rich scheme?
A.
No.
Quite the contrary, I am seeking to take a dedicated and serious approach to
challenging and difficult
aspirations,
in hopes of receiving any serious response
and sustaining in depth discussion and building some salient
agenda.
Far from quick and easy. This is not a short attention span website. For that, look
elsewhere.
Q.
Do you seek to profit by cult recruiting?
A.
No, I am not cult recruiting. And
access to FoolQuest.com
remains at no charge. Any and all profit
motive is
only exactly such collective deferred gratification as ever represented in
each or any of the various proposals.
In any case, I advance no dogmatic articles of
faith. Neither do I coerce nor beguile anyone. Every
assertion or conjecture
of mine remains entirely open to the rational scrutiny,
logical internal
consistency thinking them through for oneself or to discuss with me civilly
and seriously, real world observation and experimentation that anyone one
may ever care to try, all to stand or fall on their own merits.
Hence,
Ad Hominem accusation remains
malignant, evasive and entirely
irrelevant as ever.
Q.
Are you a
SPAMMER?
A. Only by the
most unreasonable and deliberately deceptive definitions of
Q. Then:
Why do you
respond to so many message posting board threads by pimping
your website?
A. Should one undertake the bother
to check for oneself, it might be discovered how all my hyperlinks in messages
posted online, be they to my
own pages or citations elsewhere, are each and all strictly topic pertinent.
In other words, being stated or suggested that an article hyperlinked
howsoever answers whatever question or discourse at hand, discussion of said
hyperlinked article becomes implicit.
For among other things,
FoolQuest.com
serves as my personal FAQ and resource toolbox, under continual revision,
which I and sometimes others, too! reference freely as many of the same topics and questions, however
silly or however fundamental and important, frequently arise again and
again, however seriously or however halfbaked.
Indeed, there is nothing to scorn as impersonal in the effort that
I invest. Quite to the contrary! I simply prefer to utilize recurrent
themes of
online discussion as opportunity for ongoing correction and improvement to
refine each my own FoolQuest.com
entries thereupon, and also to better focus
upon anything fresh, new and interesting to me as may arise, rather than
just repeating myself haphazardly in some callow pretence of spontaneity.
Indeed, appealing to Kant's categorical imperative,
consider: if more people similarly cultivated and referenced personal
notebooks when posting to electronic forums, would that lower or actually
raise the level of discourse online?
Q.
Is any one page contrived to appear as one thing actually no
more that a devious and
manipulative lead-in for the covert
agenda of another part of the site entirely?
A. Do you mean, have I frequently
associated one idea with another, discussed the relationship, expounded
synergy and then reciprocally reference linked the different topics? Wow! You've caught me, Sherlock!
Q.
Are you trying to scam free labor?
A.
More like I am volunteering free labor of my own, as I often assume the risk
of assisting others in development and pursuit of their
proposals (and not
just my own), on spec., even hard work and
long hours without demanding up front fees.
True
collaboration is a matter of
reciprocity. But if this is unsuitable, the matter is negotiable and I
might possibly be persuaded and retained to simply charge money.
-
What??
Harrumph,
harrumph!
No,
that's not what I meant
at all:
- Q.
As you are the one
seeking help, you the one hat in hand seeking to get off the ground,
appropriately, how should I go about charging you upfront?
A.
First of all, there has to be some hoped for return to justify the expense
and make the proposition viable. And so, presumably this would be for
something definitive in advancing my aspirations, and not just any or every
sort of services rendered. No single piece of the puzzle is useful without
the rest of the picture. It is disastrous to find oneself trapped in the
middle, undercapitalized, with no resources remaining to stay the course and
ever reach profitability.
- “The most dangerous thing in the
world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps.”
— William Lloyd George
Thus, any fee based business model would
on actuality go beyond the simple and ordinary purchase transaction of goods
and services as a consumer, and somewhat surreptitiously cast me in the
rôle,
for all intents and purposes, of Venture Capitalist, investing whatever cash I can lay hands
on in order to pay anyone else's consultant fees (or whatever) so as to
eventually achieve my own hoped for end results.
Hence, to evaluate the proposition properly as an
investment, I would absolutely require, first, to see a business plan,
including cost and revenue and man hours projection and schedules,
assumptions, all human resource needs, both in terms of qualification and
temperament, etc. Otherwise, just forget it!
Moreover, I make no promises nor do I in
any way encourage such solicitations.
And as for any model of
collaboration
or participation
that turns out to suspiciously resemble Amway style MLM Network Marketing Pyramid
schemes, there are plenty of openings for commissioned Sales Reps without
actually paying for the "opportunity", indeed boasting all manner of
promises and incentives for persistence at door to door or telemarketing or
whatever soul destroying sales drudgery, the least of which being to cover
reasonable expenses rather than saddling the unwitting, even if there are no
wages and only sales commissions.
And, no, not me, not interested. I'd go
Postal very quickly!
Q. Blah, blah, blah! Won't you only put
off any intended audience off with such strident tone and egotistical
exhibition of all
them high falutin' big wurds and overblown FX gimmickry?
A.
No.
Q.
Are you an obscurantist?
A.
How many deliberate obscurantists of your
acquaintance, actually invite collaborative
miscommunication repair?
Q.
Are you a pseudoscientist?
A.
Expressing yourself as a true scientific
rationalist, a patient and practiced adherent to
honest
dignified
criticism,
in order to better help me understand, can you cite, in context
objectively and without
nasty evasive ridicule, any alleged pseudoscience on my part, and
cogently explain how and why the former qualifies indeed as
pseudoscience?
Q.
Are you bigoted against Paranormalists?
A. I don't have a problem merely
with outré viewpoints, but, and decidedly, with flagrant Anti-Rationalism. Whereas,
on the TV shows, even the UFO abductee
characters, however haunted, are
still basically reasonable, and accept full responsibility to try to
persuade others with whatever the best evidence available, contra-wise, real
life true believers are all too oft just the opposite in temperament, endlessly
bullying and
demanding of others to agree with them as if their due, or at least to abide in tactful
silence.
And just such a lack of judgment,
honesty and self assertion, even if it
seems convenient to consensus building and cohesion, is, nevertheless, actually
quite counter productive to
investigation, creativity, real trust building, problem solving and effective
collaboration.
Q.
Do you not see that you must not be so
mean as to speak so
harshly?
A. Please always do me the great
service as to clearly and precisely set me straight as to any statement of
mine ever being untrue or in any way unjust or unwarranted, and to discuss
it with me in a lucid, reasonable, rational and dispassionately flameless
manner, so that I may know and amend.
Q. Why should
I? Is it not enough that you might ever hurt
anybody's feelings?
A. No, it is not, for such cannot be
my sole concern whatsoever. Pity-playing emotional blackmail, peer
pressure and agitation are simply no way to appeal to my sympathies.
Q.
How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
A. I try not
to.
Q.
How do you
answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
A. In iambic
pentameter!
Q. How do you
answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
A. By ungratefully casting your
tender concern back in your face, even as you weep for my soul... !
Q.
How do you
answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
A.
μῦ!
(null and void - so fuck off already!)
Q.
How do you
answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
 A.
Your hatred, to matter how palpable to you
subjectively, confers upon you no special rights to violate my rights nor
anyone else's. My rights remain my rights, undiminished, no matter how you
hate, with whatever manic intensity or cavalier nonchalance, as ever the
case may be. I am a good
person. My being is
topic out of bounds. And so, if it
is my simple being, in and of itself, or how you choose to perceive me, is
enough to provoke you, than, by all that is holy, provoke you I shall! -And even
laugh up my sleeve all the while! Because I haven't done anything wrong. I
have the right to be myself, warts and all. For you have no say in the
matter. Because who I am inside is the concern only of those who love me.
And in turn, you as anyone else, possess the inalienable right (which, as
the saying goes, I will even defend to the death!) not to like or
approve of me, so long as you never do anything about it, whatsoever.
Because, as an adult, no matter how it galls, festers or fumes with
impotence, you bear the full responsibility and obligation to swallow your
dislike of me utterly, sticking in your craw, keeping your inner poison completely and totally to
your own sweet self, without
acting
out, ever. Otherwise, you are the
bad person, unclean, a mess. Because morality
entails, first of all, simple restraint from evil doing. And
no flaming means
no flaming.
What you
flamers are doing is the equivalent of
simply shitting on the floor in public, but worse, being so deliberately
malicious. You certainly are not doing anything benevolent or altruistic,
much as you
manipulative
relational
bullies may typically so stubbornly pretend, even to yourselves, or to
however transparently to bolster one another. I certainly couldn't care less
of your opinion of me. Seek professional help. Confide in someone who can
help you! Or go waste the time of someone you actually admire, that is, if
they have any more use for you than I do.
You online bullies
and trolls
flame on and on,
endlessly, hearing nothing and saying
nothing, except repetitiously spewing empty the same endless hostility to
intimidate others,
manipulatively
and divisively, the bad driving out the good. If you must insist on making
things ugly and personal, and are so plainly not interested in anything anyone else has to contribute and refuse to take things in their intended
spirit, neither to offer any help, participation, input, discourse, support, pertinent critique
nor cogent debate, then just
move along, move along, move along, there is nothing here for you to see
here, move along, move along...
Q.
How do you
answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
A.
How do you
answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?
Q. Stop mimicking me!
A. Stop mimicking me!
Q. You!
A. You!
Q.
Who's side should one believe?
Your detractors often portray you as a pest or a creep
of some sort, ultimately driven off merely by your own fault, while you stand
by your own allegation of conniving social exclusion,
slander,
discriminatory defamation and harassment, dismissing their narrative as
sheer self serving.
Clearly, someone is lying, but who?
A. I can
only recount, upon request, to the best of my own
knowledge both
Empirically and
from second hand from others, any of the decidedly calculated dirty tricks
and ambush outright, that I have been subjected to even whist entirely minding my own
business, and about being consistently stonewalled when I come forward
demanding explanation or offering to try to work things out.
- I can not only strive to assay the proverbial stones
thrown, but also to help map the metaphorical glass house.
-
 Should
anyone become alarmed by often somewhat extreme peer pressure? Yes, of
course, because bullying is unsafe.
Nevertheless, the seeds of doubt being sown,
therefore, in case simply of caution and for purposes risk management to the
extent of routine safety concerns regarding contact with strangers,
authoritative sterling character references can be made available upon
request to the extent, quite simply, that I am neither destructive nor
exploitative by nature, nor for that matter, delusional. -which is always at all comforting to know with
any confidence, about new contacts. After that, you're on your own.
I only wish to remove any trepidation of serious danger from the equation, not to make
unrealistic guarantees beyond that. Warts and all, I may simply
disappointment you. Little worse.
More about me
- Q.
Aren't you just a bum and a
lech?
- A.
Aren't you just a square and a
prude?
-
-
- Q.
Are you not
then,
a most notorious,
unrelenting and
monumentally flagrant lecher?
-
- A. Isn't
everyone? And what of it?
-
-
Plain vanilla
lechery
is a fundamental of the human condition and an
inalienable right to all.
Q. Thou
lascivious fiend, canst thou not perceive that we are the true champions of
virtue, and not merely an underhanded noisy gaggle of self-serving
cockblockers?
A. Talk about
the foxes guarding the chicken coop!
- Q.
You bloated old perv!
-
Have you the sheer
unscrupulously unmitigated gall
A.
If the matter is so important to you, you stupid coward, then the
question should be why you have nothing intelligent to contribute, one
way or another, on such a burning issue.
Q.
Aren't your highfalutin proposed new
business models in application of future interaction on the frontiers of
ever more advanced
automated
Sociometry
really just all about the
sex?
A. Indeed, Sigmund Freud said:
"Sex
is everything."
- Q.
Look, stop beating about the bush
(so to speak)! Do you hold that society owes
you or anyone else for that matter, no matter how maladapted, not only a
living, but also
sex?
-
-
“When work is a
pleasure, life is joy!
-
When work is a duty, life is slavery.”
-
— Maxim Gorky
A. The French for word for
labor is
'travail,'
literally, suffering. And that, alas, about sums it up,
even today, for far to many people. Sloth, then, becomes fairly easy to understand. And if anyone
still needs an explanation as to lechery, surely that is a question you
should have asked your parents by now! And for fear that I be even remotely
so foolish as incorrigible
gossips care to make me out, then quick! Run and
hide! It might be catching! After all, the only folks who'd ever vouch for
me at all, have been unduly influenced by personal experience and direct
interaction. And we all know how thinking for oneself will only lead one
astray from consensus.
But for the record, no, debt is not my paradigm of
preference, here.
Excepting in so far as I hold that we
are all entitled to the pursuit, if, indeed, not any guarantee of
attainment, of happiness, peaceably, equal in rights, unmolested, free from
bullying
and harassment, and beyond this, that anyone may somehow freely shoulder
responsibility and initiative striving each in our own way,
to help bring about real progress, doing well by doing
good, such ongoing improvements to any kind of democratic free market society as
will make connections to all that is good in life (hot dates, dream jobs,
shared interests, complementary skill sets, helpful connections and much,
much more) better accessible to each
individual, and better fulfill those strivings which are not only our
cherished rights, but the only
meaningful sign of life.
The beneficial competitiveness of creativity and
growth in free markets and societies is generally preferable to the sly, sleazy vampiric and
anticompetitive exclusivity of those who quickly slam shut behind them every
door that ever was pried open in their own desperate ascension.
- “The trouble with being in the rat race is
that even if you win ….. you’re still a rat!” — Lily Tomlin.
Now, why would anyone be against people to aspire and
persist, ever doing, being and becoming better,
hmm... ? Indeed, just who is it, what Sophomoric malign ubiquitous puerile self anointed gatekeepers, holding themselves so high above their fellow human beings, to
judge each of us our worth and worthiness for private happiness or even hope
itself?
By contrast, what have I ever espoused, save in the hope
in progress beneficial to all?
Q. Aren't
feelings of persecution by others merely the standard paranoid excuse for
personal inadequacy?
A. Isn't
victim blaming, the castigation of the target of abuse the standard excuse for persecution?
Q.
There you go again, complaining!
A.
Oh,
pother!
Q. What, yet more
of your manifesto-like drivel about bullies in collusion?
Are you a Paranoid
Conspiracy Theorist?
- A.
No,
and beware!
-
-
- What
is conspiracy theory, really?
Suppose,
just for purposes of illustration, that three people rob a gas station
together. It is always possible, however unlikely, that they all simply
chose the same day by coincidence, and cooperated spontaneously. Or
instead, might one tend even to assume that they planned it together
from the start? And such being thus, does that mean that we are all conspiracy theorists
by human nature, even so to surmise?
-
- No, because plotting to rob a gas
station remains, alas, ordinary, common and even somewhat tawdry.
Therefore, in any particular circumstances, whether actually true or
false as it may ever turn out, such explanation may even be deemed
scientific in seeking explanation of unknown specifics in terms of
known
generalities. Whereas, an important feature of conspiracy theory proper,
remains any far greater leap of faith in
explanation of the
known
in terms of the unknown or at least more uncommon or grander.
-
- Alas, however,
bullying,
in all of its connivance and convolution, is all too prevalent.
-certainly not less so, than, for example, physical assault, mugging.
And effectively seeking to dismiss the very allegation in principle even
a'priori as paranoid, is nothing but typical victim blaming, a classic
propaganda device, feigning ignorance that
bullying
even exists or occurs. But is anyone really deceived?
Q.
Put up or shut up! All you proffer are vague generalities!
- A.
All that you offer is vague whining!
- Is
there a question in there?
Q.
But
is not all nonphysical
bullying merely harassment categorically no
more than psychological warfare best thwarted and transcended simply by
ignoring and blissfully tuning it all out? And aren't cliques exercising
constitutionally protected freedom of association, with no wider detrimental
impact upon social connectivity to anyone singled out, but hurtful only to those who pathetically pine for their
friendship? And isn't bullying after all
no more than an individual misbehavior?
A.
Indeed, exactly as
gossip is never anything
more onerous nor devious than perfectly innocent freedom of speech, the crucial information of reputation
being reliably indispensable in the evaluation of suitability in prospective
transactions with strangers, peer pressure being normatively valuable to
successful
socialization, while
abuse of power is entirely another question. --Or a rite of
passage, I forget! If it ain't broke, don't fix
it!
After all, what is so-called "relational
bullying" but just another needless
pseudo-sociological buzzword? Problem, what problem?
-
-
- Q.
What
about all the sheer palpable anger
you express?
- Bear you no trepidation as to what
terrible violence of one kind or another or malfeasance whatsoever such undisguised naked emotion might
ever possibly
motivate or inspire?
-
- A.
Don't be such an utter pussy, but help
me rock the damn boat!
- Or have you any better option? Is
just doing nothing truly any less dangerous?
Aside from driving home my point, my intention is to validate the righteous
indignation of those who have suffered and been discounted. But yes,
distortion of my intentions being ongoing as it clearly is, and the
hostility clearly triggered, indeed, who knows what anyone is likely to do
or to rationalize? So, yes, a worrisome consideration
indeed.
Nevertheless, I also remain hopeful that the
tactical
options (yes!) in the alternatives both to passive endurance on the one hand and to
erupting violence on the other, that
CliqueBusters
TM actually proposes, may ever be
understood in the spirit intended, enter into free discussion and ever come
into practice so as to be helpful to anyone at all. And that'd be grand!
Q.
And what is all that dorky 'Star Trek'
crap?
A. There's nothing wrong with 'Star Trek'
except bad writing. And little ever right about 'Star Trek' that didn't
begin from good writing.
And if one doesn't care for like 'Star Trek' then one may
still brainstorm any of the other subject matter in
the fiction writing sections.
Q.
"Your pages make my computer act funny!"
A. The complainant of the above then
refused to elaborate and became increasingly hostile.
Q. But I cannot navigate your frames pages because your
buttons are so Esthetically displeasing!
- A.
That sort of complaint just makes no sense!
- -And even seems somewhat passive
aggressive.
Rather, let the
Esthetics of Webdesign be best considered in context.
(Note: I couldn't make this one up if I tried. But that
was all I was able to dig out of them!)
|
|
For clearly spelling
out real technical problems and genuine usability issues
in adequate specificity such that I might so much as hope to understand
and locate any said
glitches to then at least endeavor whatever requisite trouble shooting,
please open the
support page.) |
|
Q.
Why will you not accommodate us?
A. Be nice to
me! You first!
Copyright
Aaron Agassi 2002-2021
updated October 2003 |
