Q. Aren't you being defensive, here?

A. Yes, I am.

 

Q. This page is to save time, you say?

Let's save time by ignoring you!

 

A. Promises, promises!

 

Q. Do you make fraudulent claims?

 

A. No, I present hopefully viable proposals, with little in the way of claims as to the present state.

 

 

Q. Then are you a big loser? 

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 admit your legendary vast inadequacy?

A. Inadequacy is well known to be proportional to the gap between one's current situation plus power to alter said, and one's desires. And so, all frustration must needs be both circumstance and inadequacy, tautologically.

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) 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 ever find ourselves on the receiving end. 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. Look, just because I persecute others so flagrantly, doesn't mean I'm an evil windbag

no better than the bullies I imitate...!

A. Perish the very thought!

 

 

Q. Just who do you think you are?

 

A. I know my own mind.

And I'd recommend as much for anyone.

 

But I ought to be pressing you with the very same question!

For, indeed, what is truly the more utterly pompous self inflated and arrogant? Sheer unapologetic personal egotism, or blithe presumption of however moral authority derived heteronymously? -To actively place whatsoever the greater stock in oneself as oneself, or howsoever to invest oneself the grandeur beyond merely speaking merely for oneself?

 

Alas, jealous rage is known to be triggered less by whatever personal assets, talents, privilege or advantage and success, than by the simple courage of effort and expression that really ever sets an individual to stand out apart from the crowd.

 

An individualist is one embracing the precept that for autonomous action and free expression, one need after all be no one special in particular after all. An individualist thus, far form justifying any stripe of antisocial superiority, is bound thereby to an egalitarian and altruistic stance in extending his or her very individualism to all others likewise.

 

Hence, from the standpoint of individualism, implicitly or explicitly evoking however heteronymous purported authority in order to crush individual autonomous behavior, action and free expression, is what is truly and flagrantly pompous, parental, arrogant and demeaning, even most dangerous and destructive.

Q.  I cannot comprehend. You are just too weird!

A. Not listening is an art!

One fine day, humanity may at long last contact another sapience so alien and different, that there will be a vast gulf in communication for want of the requisite commonality in referents at all. However, I myself can hardly claim anywhere near that level of originality! Besides, even among our own human species, the more truly different separate cultures are, then, all things being equal, the less friction.

Indeed, what we actually have here is NOT a failure to communicate at all, but rather, failure to relate. We are entirely at cross-purposes. In all of your scorn, you are not actually concerned with accuracy or message content at all. Passive hostility from sheer Borg hive-minded heteronymous anxiety is your true motive in acting out that shallow and empty mean spirited fraudulent fuss and pother which passes for attentive controversy but actually constitutes no more than shunning and calculatedly irrelevant soft-flame escalating into abuse outright, the contemptuous anti-intellectual rejection of crucial effective listening and reading skills and especially the refusal to diligently cooperate in what is called Miscommunication Competence, meaning, instead of endless headgames and melodrama, the ongoing essentially friendly and healthy reciprocal systematic effort at simply identifying, sorting out and repairing communication errors and other crossed signals as ever they may inevitably arise, candidly and entirely without prior justification or approval.

Just as genuinely attentive argumentative controversy remains the analytic mode of exchange in case of disagreement, likewise, Miscommunication Competence is the analytic Meta-Conversational framework of exchange in case of incomprehension, often reciprocal. Disagreement and incomprehension being the normal circumstance, even relationship howsoever, trust and tolerance at all, all as opposed to heteronymous expectations of identity or oneness, are entirely contingent upon just such difference or perspective.

Alas, however, you poor witless wretch, remain entrenched behind an irrelevant frame or cognitive and perceptual filter to which you are accustomed, too xenophobic for new ideas in context. You desperately seek validating social subtext where none is provided nor actually required. You lack empathy which is an aspect of emotional intelligence, not social intelligence. Hence you fall all the more prey to Fundamental Attribution Error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) in general and projective Ad Hominem Abusive Hostile Attribution Bias most particularly. 

In truth, and believe it or not, I am a very friendly person when not aggravated in fending off witlessly dorky, repulsive and blithely demeaning Borg assimilation! But clearly you can never value me for myself or much care for anything that I'd ever have to offer. Nor will you ever wish to disclose anything much genuine of yourself any finer than ubiquitous controlling and manipulative jealous rage.

What you are selling I do not want. To what you are threaten me, I dare not capitulate. Kindly desist from thrusting upon me your own empty obsession with unthreatening small talk, formulaic stereotypical interactions, approval seeking, depraved exploitation and degenerate social climbing.

You are not your own person to whom I could relate, speaking up for yourself, but a pawn, a drone, a sad cliquish cog in the machine, a self appointed gatekeeper, representative of whatever dreary righthink. You are a bully and a sycophant. You do not make friends, rather you either cult recruit or else join up. Either way, the sheer conditionality simply does not appeal.

If someday anyone ever loves you, you cannot know it. For, alas, you have traded your soul just that cheaply. And sad to say, I cannot help you until first you just drop the idiotic facade and confront reality.

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 an 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 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. What about those annoying pop-ups?

A. What about'm? The only pop-ups I am actually aware of in any way connected to my site, are from the free message posting boards, none my own doing or content. Feel free to become one of their "supporters" by paying up their ransom to keep the pop-ups away, or just switch on whatever your own free popup blocker as desired. By all means, if there are any other pop-ups anywhere else on my site, do please fill out a trouble report just for my own curiosity.

There may also be pop-ups associated with any of the many links offsite, again none of my doing, although I do frequently enframe offsite content. (I'm naughty that way! But there is no plagiaristic deception, seeing as there is no effort made to conceal the jarringly different styles, logos and branding clearly indicating and attributing the varied sources.)

Q. Are you a SPAMMER?

A. Only by the most unreasonable and deliberately deceptive definitions of

Q. Why do you respond to so many message posting board threads by pimping your website?

A. 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! Consider: if more people cultivated and referenced personal notebooks when posting to electronic forums, would that lower or actually raise the level of discourse online? If that be egotism, methinks 'tis of the healthy kind!

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. And I have been explicit in my terms.

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.

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 role, 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.

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 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 is simple restraint. 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 I or 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. I heard the story all about how you...

A. Yes, I am very sure that you have. But as the saying goes, believe half what you see and none of what you hear. As ever, honest investigation into whatever the pedestrian truth, in context, behind the sheer credulity and colorful hyperbole of urban mythology, is almost always something of a let down.

Sorry to say, but my ever wilder reputation is quite divorced from my dreary reality, and often seems to be having by far so more fun than the real me! And I am forced to admit that I can see why my legendary reputation might seem so much more amusing to hang around with than the humdrum flesh and blood. But ever be advised that all such illusion is a cynical advantage which can never be trusted as a true friend. And that is why competent biographers ferret out the intimates of whomever their subject to interview for any more sober perspective. After all, rumor mongering, like any other dry drunk, is only easier, seldom ever more productive or edifying. Friends don't let friends derive bunk!

Q. It is, of course, entirely your own fault that you are an unlovable fool and a spaz worthy only of our mockery and ridicule. But can even you not with irrefutable numinous clarity perceive how I come to the above stunning insight without any bother and in such effortless passing that constitutes the idle moment's diversion as it lightly arises in the consummately stable and fulfilling success story that is my joy, joy, happy, happy life? It is not, after all, in any way as if I where actually on the look out for anyone to torment or in any way somehow bitter or obsessed or anything like that!

A. No, of course not.

Q. Surely you cannot seriously impugn arbitrary persecution or intolerance the part of even so progressive as any deviant coterie and such culture as whole heartedly embraces and defends their liberties!

A. Amazing how some folks are so very broad minded, but only when it comes to abuse and exploitation! But then, who is more corseted, Reactionary, prudish, mean spirited and full of themselves than the shameless apologists of Nouveau Whipped kinkier than thou, and in a more laughably precarious a pot/kettle/black position, of all the unmitigated gall, to ever demonize anyone else at all! And yet:

 

 

Q. Are you not a most notorious, unrelenting and monumentally flagrant lecher?

 

A. Who isn't?

Q. Isn't CASA really 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?

A. The French for word for work 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, and, beyond this, that we are all somehow responsible to try 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.

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. Persecution is but an excuse for inadequacy!

A. Don't you really mean just the opposite?

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?

Q. No, and beware!

For I am the Realist Counter-Conspiracy Architect of CliqueBusters TM  and other subversive webcontent on FoolQuest.com

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!)

Q. Why will you not accommodate us?

A. Be nice to me! You first!

Copyright Aaron Agassi 2002-2007