Nobody’s Absurdities, No. 47
Nobody’s Absurdities:
“Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle. A lie is the lack of truth in the absence of manliness.” ET..I mean EG.
So, does this mean that this motorcycle does not exist?
I’m so glad EG said that, and not someone like Gandhi. Truth is now sexual, and lies are now feminine, which means if guys…lie, they are gay?
Could you be just a little more clear on this?
Being nebulous is always a good way to get out of absurd statements.
I certainly would like to get back to being myself again…BUT….
If I don’t say at least SOMETHING about EG’s last personal attack on me, than EG will, like the jihads over in Iraq, think that I’ve conceded the points he made, and that he is right about women never having an original thought in their lives: Hedy Lamarr is basically being a whore with no brain according to him, and Joyanna Williams (see Nobody Cares) is so pathetically starving for attention…that she just knew, by answering his silly hypothesized point (that no one woman ever in the world ever thought up a “conceptual’ invention)…that she would get plenty of attention, thereby trying to prove her own “superiority.”
Yes, if you disagree with Elder George, you want attention. Watch out, Elder George is now a practicing psychiatrist.
Elder George, you are a real pip. You ask for “one woman,” as proof, and I gave you one.
Trust me George…if anyone is superior here on this earth, it’s not you or me.
Frankly, I’d rather be writing about more important things…like the fact that Hillary Clinton plans to, when elected, supply the whole continent of Africa with new schools for all the kids, and her husband is giving away cows and farms all over the world, at OUR expense, thereby destroying the Ozone with cow flatulent, so that Al Gore can make money. No kidding…no one is reporting this absurdity.
To me, that’s my part in stopping this Marxist/feminist takeover of the world.
(sigh)
And yet, even if I was not enlightened by EG’s “poetry,” some good came out of the arguments. Mike LaSalle, was brilliant and educated us all on logic and principles: amfortas was the usual enumerating professor of life: Kate M supplied some pretty good stuff, and I really enjoyed Artfldgr’s comments. Thank you sir for all that you wrote on the subject…boy do I know where you are coming from, having been there myself.
And all the other writers put in their two cents…all were cordial, except for Mr. 666.
If you want to know the frustrations of an inventor…read Artfldgr’s poignant comments. Being an inventor is getting harder, with globalization. (Oh, that must be a woman’s fault.)
The feminists movement was started (big time anyway) by Marxists of the university’s in the 1960’s and women were forced back into the work force. This whole “movement” was planned (Rockefeller has admitted it.) to get women back into the work force …and some women just had to go back to work just to feed themselves, because of all the divorces. Not all of them got rich divorce settlements. What a mess the “sexual revolution” bought.
Of course men built the world. Of course more men get patents than women. I never said they didn’t. Of course some women are evil, and so are some men.
If you haven’t learned that by now, you never will.
But to say that no woman on earth could ever conceive an idea is, sorry– pretty stupid.
Here is a fact: Almost all inventions are built on the ideas that came before them. Very few “men” (feel better?) wake up and say, “Oh…I think I’ll make an MRI today.” …right out of the clear blue sky.
EG cannot help that he never invented anything…conceptual. It’s hard to understand when you don’t know the real process of inventing. Artfldgr did an excellent job trying to explain it.
Tell me. If you wanted to find out about “inventing” would you believe a man who thinks up philosophical theories, or would you ask actual inventors? (My patents have ONLY my name on them.) Would you ask a doctor to take out your spleen— or a mechanic?
I presented inventor’s educational opinions as evidence, EG presented…himself.
EG…I don’t know where you get your credentials on this.
Did you know that a man named Meucci developed the telephone, and was unable to develop it because he didn’t have the $250 application fee? Bell, developed his “invention” in the same lab that Meucci’s prototype was kept, in other words, he copied it. And THEN, a man named Grey actually filed before Bell, but Bell got his to the right people FIRST and was given the patent. So he ripped off two men. Therefore..
Ahhhhh…..
“Of course, people can sometimes reasonably differ on the obviousness of a piece of evidence cited in an argument, or they can blind themselves to the truth and can even refuse to listen to rational argument at all. The best intellectual reasoning can fail completely to overrule strongly opposed passions.” …Tom Morris, PhD. Philosophy for Dummies.
And to end this, I thought that scottkirk said something that was a very good point;
“I think E.G. and a few others are simply counter-attacking after 40 years of vile feminists demagoguery that has thrown America into Chaos.”
You know what Scott? I think you’re right.
And the whole thing was fun…
But one more thing…
Nobody’s Cares: There is only ONE thing that truly amazed me about EG’s “truth.” He was obviously SO upset about my mentioning that I got my proclivity for writing from my ancestry, that somehow he looked up my “maiden” name…and he didn’t even get that right. He just had to go and get all PMSie and he thinks, proved me a “fraud.” He even threw in a nasty comment from an e-mail he got.
Yes, once again EG…you got it wrong.
I was born Joyce Ann Williams. My father, Dale Williams was German/Polish/ Prussian…but it was on my mother’s side that I get the Adams’ gene.
Which means in EG's world, it’s not valid.
My mother’s father…George Hart's mother was related to the Adams. …(see picture of George, with picture of John Quincy Adams here…you must scroll down to the bottom of the page, look for A CALL TO ARMS…and compare.)
The top one is George Hart (my grandfather)…the bottom is John Quincy Adams taken when he was about 80.
All the men on my mother's side look like that..bald, short, stubby..even my mother looked like a female version of John Adams, poor thing. Good thing I look like my English grandmother, Anna.
It was my first entry on my "blog."
George’s mother was Francis Adams, (descendant of the founding Adams) and his father was Orion Hart.
In fact, going back farther to the beginning of the country, the Harts and Adams were all over Braintree…they often married…Harts and Adams.
The Harts and Adams alone probably alone filled up half the country, before the revolution even started.
The Harts and Adams came over on the same boat as Thomas Hooker. (Founder of CT) They went to live in Braintree, named after Braintree of Wales. The Harts helped the Hookers found the little schoolhouse that later became Harvard. Hartford was named after John Hart…
I even have a land deed from 1763 that my grandfather gave me….when King George was still ruling America…John Hart selling his land to the son of Thomas Hooker. (It’s pretty cool)
It's in Old English..and is real proof of how far our educational system has come. (that's a joke.)
John Hart (Orion’s ancestor) had a farm on ford of the river, and everyone use to say, when giving directions; “Just go down to Hart’s ford.”…which morphed into Hartford.
Our family has done a genealogical research, it’s really fun to read. One guy got killed by a mule. One guy had a rock fall on him. If you have never done one, you should, they are really funny.
Anyway, when I was a musician, I went under the name Joy Fushia, because when you are a public figure, you do not want to use your real name to protect yourself from nuts, and family reasons. People can't look you up in the phone book.
I thought, in honor of my ancestors, and because I am mostly interested about politics, I would make up a name…much like Mark Twain made up his name. So Joy (short for Joyce) …Anna, (after my dear grandmother) and Adams…
So, Elder George. Why you went looking for “information” on me is beyond me. I thought it was rather…hateful. After all, I didn’t go looking for your last name…surely your first name is not Elder. And I respect your privacy. It's the decent thing to do when in public.
And if you go looking to find out the name that I sign my checks by, or the name that is my married name, I hope that you will have the decency to not reveal this information, because I have a son, and a husband, whom I do not want hurt by anything that I might say now, or in the future.
I’d advise you against it. It’s a matter of my privacy.
In any case…I’m a mutt just like all the rest of America. I got my eyes from my grandma, my musical ability from my dad, my “inventor’s” proclivities from my dad, and my mind from my mother.
My brother on the other hand, is an alein.
And my horrible addicting habit of collecting books, loving to write, loving justice, truth and honesty in all men, and loving the subjects of politics, I got from the Adams. Oh, they also had a habit of having men think they were conceited.
Which you obviously think I am because you wouldn't have gotten so upset.
As far as thinking that George– trust me, you couldn't be farther from the truth. You have NO idea.
Anything else that upsets you about me can be blamed on “unseen” spiritual truths of which I have no control.
So, what do you think? I bet you any money a woman thought up that motorcycle and a man just put it together.
I don't care who invented it…I want one.
I am a nobody. If the different classes of America were color-coded, I would be in your yucky brown, one rink up from the bottom. I grew up in Naples, Florida and live near the Mississippi River now with my husband and two dogs. I am part of the slowly disappearing middle-class. I was a musician most of my life;drummer/singer/keyboards---but I retired before the plastic surgery flu hit. I have no degrees, which could be a good thing...depending on how you view our educational system. I do have three patents...but that really doesn't make me a somebody. The one thing that is constant in my life is my OPINIONS...which I have more of than perhaps even Carl Sagan could have imagined, mostly political. Hopefully other nobodys will put their opinions on my site. But if you are a sombody...you're more than welcomed to help out. I will try to prove that sometimes nobody knows the answers, sometimes nobody cares, sometimes nobody wins, and most importantly...NOBODY is perfect. Please bear this in mind when you read my thoughts. I don't mean to offend nobody, it's all in good fun. | More from Joyanna Adams
Stumble It!
July 10th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Ahhh…so refreshing to see more the the marital spat continuing. Whilst I love to read both your works when posted, can you please bury the hachet and move on. Just a quick question though…Would Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton have the patent/copyright on “Dumb Blonde”. Thanks for the family history Joyanna. I found it very interesting (especially the land deed part…that’s just cool.) The only truth I KNOW is the Al Gore’s concert polluted the earth more than cow farts. Have a great day and keep them coming.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Wow after reading this its much easier to make decisions.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Great piece, Joyanna!
Oh, and kudos to whoever had the idea to put wheels on one of Janet Reno’s shoes.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Shit! Look at the size of that shoe. I don’t want to meet THAT Cinderella in a dark alley.
Wow, Joy. So really, you own America. Its in good hands then. (What’s your glove size. Don’t tell me!). At least your ancestors got out of Wales. Are you sure it was Wales? Braintree is in Essex. Maybe someone was sold a Welsh village and moved it. It would be unusual for two families in one village in Wales to marry. They usually raided the village in the next valley having spotted someone they fancied when drinking there on a sunday.
Yep, I agree with tv2112. We don’t want to see you on the front pages having slashed the tyres on EGs patented, wheely-zimmer frame.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Joyanna —
(1) Truth is now sexual, and lies are now feminine, which means if guys…lie, they are gay?
*chuckles* This is so stupid, Joyanna.
MMX to Joyanna Waitress: “Get me a pizza and step on it.”
MMX (seven minutes later) “What’s this footprint doing in this pizza?”
Nobody Watiress, “But yooo told meee to step on iiiiit.” *canned laughter protects Joyanna from seeing she’s being obstructive and annoying*
MMX to Nobody (who is in the fit of emotional overload): “Get a hold of yourself!”
(Nobody starts groping herself in confusion, wondering why she isn’t calming down. Thirty minutes later, MMX is brought up on charges for “instigating a sexual assault”) *canned laughter and a police billy club prevent MMX from pointing out that if Joyanna wasn’t so pathetically bad at understanding idiom then this wouldn’t have happened in the first place*
Joyanna, you’re so busy trying to look funny and superior that you still don’t understand why you’ve missed the point! (And your proclivity to ignore people who disagree with you proves that you write, NOT to understand, but to create a brown-noser’s club in response to Elder’s ideas. You’re not the “Nobody Pursues Truth” club, but the “She-Joyanna Elder Hater’s Club”)
(2) It’s a low-blow and a mockery to cite artfldgr’s work, because you clearly didn’t understand it.
I’ll prove it to you with a challenge.
Which masculine qualities did he state lead to inventiveness, and which feminine qualities did he state would hamper it?
Artfldgr did a great service in arguing that “women” could invent, but only if they were raised in a more masculine way. This is perfectly congruent with Elder’s statement that only people who are under the influence of specific unseen masculine concepts will be inventive. And that, a rejection of these concepts will most certainly lead to non-inventiveness.
(3) “Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle. A lie is the lack of truth in the absence of manliness” and then later “If I don’t say at least SOMETHING about EG’s last personal attack on me, than EG will, like the jihads over in Iraq, think that I’ve conceded the points he made, and that he is right about women never having an original thought in their lives”
For the 700th time, it’s not about MEN and WOMEN, because MEN and WOMEn are thigns you can SEE, specifically penises and vaginas. It is instead about unseen masculine and feminine concepts, the masculine of which, if anyone seizes them, will produce an inventive person.
(4) Every article you’ve ever written, and every objection you’ve ignored, stems from a deeply rooted insecurity, coupled with a fear of offending women. both of these are feminine traits. This also proves Elder’s point that, people who become over-possessed with feminine traits will NEVER be able to see the truth of what he says. (And they’ll also devote themselves to a silly game of superiority by inventing NOTHING but a stupid argument to get attention and approval from others, who are also over-possessed with feminine traits.)
Hence, the “She-Joyanna Elder Hater’s Club.”
July 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Esther Vilar..The manipulated man…
“only women can break the viscous circle of mans manipulation and exploitation by the women.but she will not do it. There is absolutelly no compelling reason why she should. It is useless to appeal to her feelings, for she is callous and knows no pity. And so the world will go on, sinking deeper and deeper into this morass of kitsch, barbarism, and inanity called femininity.”
“and man the wonderfull dreamer will never awaken from his dream”
July 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Scottkirk — Nice!! If a man wants to know whether he’s awakened from this dream, he should ask himself how much the woman first ignores him, and then tries to make him feel bad by gushing praise over all the men and women who agreed with her without even mentioning his name.
Once a man is masculine enough to handle being shunned, he’s golden.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Joyanna EG never said NO woman invented, nor did he say they cannot. Read the study chronicled in He Thinks She Thinks…thats what EG was saying….my goodness folks.
I didn’t see the personal attack and the personal info. I would not endorse that.
Not one of the absolute statements you ascribe to EG did he make….those would be supremely offensive. You read them, but he didn’t write them. It is petty (pictures) to dwell in the exceptions while railing against the points. We all do it, men and women. But Joy did you read that study? Was it offensive to you as a woman? I really want to know, because what EG says simply summarizes the over arching conclusions of this study.
I stutter at how this stuff is offensive and eliciting defensiveness. Funny thing is (now let me be petty), men are fair game in societal observation. We mustn’t though EVER focus on masculine strength…at least without a comment tossed to the gals about how we really didn’t mean it and they are just fine and dandy as they are.
Why are these concepts fine when standup comedians speak them? Oh its irreverant humor, edgy, cutting edge funnies, social observational humor never offends because the tongue is in the cheek.
But lets not deal with the reality, because things are just fine as they are. Men getting belittled in every form of media, women being nearly worshiped…isn’t that just natural?
Walter Williams does great writing about discrimination. He uses statistics and some would read his words and get fuming foaming mad. The same junk is happening here.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
ESTHER VILAR..in her book “the manipulated male”
“It is useless to appeal to her feelings, for she is callous and knows no pity. And so the world will go on, sinking deeper and deeper into this morass of kitsch, barbarism, and inanity called femininity”..
Are their any men alive in the western world who are bold enough to save us from imminent internal collapse????Most men (including myself) continue to try to appeal to the womens feelings for redress..Esther Vilar (a women) says that approach is futile.. for contrary to what men want women to be (in their women as god complex) she is callous and knows no pity…
I would say that its callous to demand even more of everything from men who are now working themselves to an average 6 yr. early death sentence.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
wow .. it’s kind of sad to watch two ‘professionals’ go at it like some kids on a bullentin board.
So .. umm .. I fail to follow all the anger, I read the post history, why so much anger over something so silly? So you named ONE name and called victory. It didn’t meet his criteria, so .. ummm .. why not toss us another name of ONE female other then her? Are there NO others to toss into the fray? You’re so upset because he didn’t like your first choice, but wait, could it be you’re really upset because you fail to present another name for consideration? All your faith bundled into that one named woman, not one single replacement name is possible? If you’re so convinced of your statements, well why not just toss us another woman? Are there none?
My that seems odd. One might think that this EG fellow actually knew what he was talking about and that you are just emotionally over reacting.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
As women know what women are like and dispise it, Nietzsche summerises them accurately ….
“When women hate.— When feeling hatred, women are more dangerous than men. First and foremost because once their hostile feeling has been aroused, they are inhibited by no considerations of fairness but let their hatred swell undisturbed to the final consequences;”
This does explain the ongoing testyness demonstrated by “Nobody”.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Testyness ? I see the cold weather up there in Lonny is getting at the lumbago, christianj. When a lovely flame dies from the forestry burning-offs, smoke gets in your eyes.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:37 am
Having had a little time to digest the implications of some of the things said, I have to raise a voice to censure Elder George.
It is not a matter of our not seeing eye to eye on his essay. He is entitled to his views.
No. It is the trying to find out information about people on this site – a matter of asking the person – by playing amatuer sleuth and then spilling the beans by disclosing personal matters for all to see. Joyanna’s maiden name is none of our damned business unless she wishes to tell us, and then she can do that. I care not that I might be alone in thinking this a bit sinister. It is definitely below the belt stuff.
EG has shown complete disregard for the privacy expectations of not only Joyanna, who, frankly, has every reason and right to be aggrieved, but of all people who contribute here.
The etiquette of a medium like this is generally not codified in a set of written rules. It is ‘assumed’ by ordinary good manners, adult respect and some semblance of common sense. Yet EG choses to advance his ‘point’ by telling things about Joyanna which are personal and irrelevant to the discussion.
EG has many fine qualities, I am sure, but he does his reputation no good at all by acting like some smart-arse by playing dirty. And he talks of ‘Truth’ and ‘Principle’.
It is a disgrace and he brings it opon himself.
And to head off any criticism of motive, I say this not specifically as a defense of Joyanna Adams but as a defense of the privacy and integrity of all of us.
EG, I think you owe all of us, and specifically JA, an aplology.
July 11th, 2007 at 4:56 am
amfortas…It’s unfortunate if joy has had her feelings hurt over the unfortunate reality that women create very little in this world.
But to turn youre hurt feelings over the situation to E.G. and attack his researching a maiden name that was gleefully, and boastfully given is simply ridiculous…
Esther vilar states that womens brains atrophy from them not having to use it for survival.If women want to be more creative…then when you get a flat tire beside the road, don’t wait for a man to change it for you..change it youreself and you will be exerciseing the mind body connection that strenghtens the creative parts of the brain. She goes on to state all minds are born equal, but womens minds atrophy in the area of creativity, because they never have to use it. men/boys are forced to use it because (in general)were not coddled by society.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:25 am
“…But to turn youre hurt feelings over the situation ”
My feelings aren’t hurt, Scott. If Joy’s are, she can say that. ‘Gleeful’ is a strange perception you have there.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:31 am
joyanna “pridefully” boasted of her heritage…
In mens circles that sort of pride would be considered infantile, and distastefull.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 am
What strange men’s circles you must move in. Most men I know are proud of their heritage. Most great men in history have had pride in their heritage. I see no reason that a woman should not be, nor to express that pride. Distastful. Don’t come the raw prawn. You are better than that. Whose corner are you fighting here? Are you not proud of your heritage?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Wow. It just keeps going, and going, and going, and going…
July 11th, 2007 at 7:09 am
“Researching” someone’s maiden name and then posting it on the internet is creepy.
I am in complete agreement with Amfortas on this. “Hurt feelings” are irrelevant. It is EG’s actions that are concerning.
EG owes JA an apology, and owes all of us an explanation.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:15 am
amfortas..pride comes before the fall…simple as that…some men understand this abstract princeaple..most are oblivious!!
One women hinting at..I’m offended and scared because someone googled my maiden name…(ADAMS..American heritage hero)..and the debate goes from one of substance to one of fear/emotionalism/cencorship.Quite unfortunate turn of events…but thats the state of affairs in this feminist leviathan. Joyanna wins because she can drum up fear/hysteria, and summon missdirected male chivalry.
I certainly respect all those involved, (joyanna included) and will stand down while E.G. is forced to kneel at the heal of fear/hysteria.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:26 am
scottkirk – you are missing the point. EG didn’t simply “google her maiden name”. How could he do that if he didn’t know the maiden name in the first place? No, EG INVESTIGATED her. EG spent TIME and probably MONEY INVESTIGATING an intellectual opponent. Then he POSTED the results of his INVESTIGATION on the internet.
That is CREEPY, it is NOT MANLY.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:30 am
mike she openly and bragadocously offered her maiden name!!
I don’t get drawn into the hysteria that is being alluded to here..
hysteria is destruction!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 8:34 am
society is simply not ready yet to take a look at feminine hysteria..so I will choose my battles wiselly..stand down, to fight another day!!
July 11th, 2007 at 8:35 am
“she…offered her maiden name!!”
No she did not.
I had no idea what her maiden name was until I read EG’s article.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I have just re-read the opening article above. There is no indication that Joy was fearful or hysterical. She sounded peeved and annoyed. I would have been too.
Scott, for some reason I cannot fathom, you have decided to counter my resonable concern for your privacy as well as mine, Joyanna’s and everyone else here. And you so so by attacking and accusing a properly aggrieved party of being hysterical. I don’t get it.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Isn’t fascinating that at the end of it, we have to apologise for our actions to another member of the sex that has destroyed our lives ?
What type of manginas are you all?
Why is it that whenever the feeling of a women is “hurt, misunderstood,misinterpreted”
We have to apologise…
As far as I am concerned, this is a mens site and she is here only due to our tolerance and out effort to discuss the whole picture (more than feminists and their lackies do) and try to discuss it.
But exceeding that line will be met with force and so be it, as they always do. Every time.
This is going the same way the two previous forums has ended up going and the only reason it has it because we have included feminists on this site to destroy it.
Another massive effort for those “understanding” men that feel that any association with women is actually worth pursuing regardless of past history, just to be screwed again and again and again……..
How many times does this have to happen to realise that they are not here to help but only to destroy…
When are men going to wake up ?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“hysteria”, thy name is “christianj”.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:24 am
“amfortas said,
Testiness ? I see the cold weather up there in Lonny is getting at the lumbago, christianj. When a lovely flame dies from the forestry burning-offs, smoke gets in your eyes.”
Amfortas…
Your only jealous of our new pulp mill !
I do not see Women as part of our stragedy to succeed.. they have not demonstrated otherwise, except maybe in minutiae..
Nietzsche is totally correct, women are not our saviour, they are the opposition even though they pretend to be otherwise.
The odd female confessing to be our help-meet, are just that.
Minuscule……
July 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Christianj, this has what? to do with privacy?
I like the pulp mill idea. I’d put it on Maria Island m’self.
No one has suggested women as part of our strategy to succeed. Oh, apart from me. Old Nietzsche intimated that even the Devil might be redeemed – or didn’t you get that far in Faust?
Joyanna Adams – I am not being chivalrous here – brings more wit and breadth of subject to this great MND than you and me together. She is a resident writer. A damned good one. We are just commentators.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am
the bottom line is that she offered her maiden name out of pridefull arrogance…E.G. being the man he is..(just like proveing that the “inventor” was a black haired women and not a blonde bombshell)..he similarly researched the history of the people she quoted..
when losing an argument..she changes the game to hysteria.. She changes the game to hysteria…because thats the reset button that has been programed into men by the women-as-victim paradigm we now live in!!
and the feminist juggernaut marches on…unchallenged!!
July 11th, 2007 at 9:42 am
hahahaha. Nietzsche/Faust. Just testing.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Mike LaSalle said,
“hysteria”, thy name is “christianj”.
Mike, this is your site, great, but I do not see any progress in men’s rights just because you see it necessary to have a woman’s disjointed opinions and also the opinions of a woman that has demonstrated her anti-male attitude on this site.
We have a female attacking the opinion of a man that has only ever demonstrated that his knowledge and opinions are to further men’s standing in society to be not only beneficial but also a comprehensive response to the current emancipation of males and trying to right the wrong that feminists have destroyed.
Meanwhile we have that same message from Adams denouncing males at every opportunity or whenever she sees fit to further her feminist doctrine.
So what is the advantage of this ongoing argument apart from increasing traffic flow..
What possible reason is there for allowing this female to continually allow her to cast aspersions against males ?
Personally I am sick to death of it.
But, like I say it’s your site and you do whatever you like…
But this is getting us nowhere…
Maybe you know something that I do not…
July 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am
“the bottom line is that she offered her maiden name out of pridefull arrogance…”
No source? No citation? Then it is a bold claim without foundation. In other words, a LIE.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:07 am
christianj, et al: Men will never elevate themselves by lowering women. Nor will EG win an intellectual debate by INVESTIGATING his opponents and ATTACKING their PRIVACY.
This is hot button territory, and I will not tolerate such behavior on MND – as you well know.
(BTW – an article written by AH in the aftermath of the incident was prescient.)
July 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Mike LaSalle — And people who believe in gender equality will never elevate themsdelves by reducing all great issues to their lowest common denominators.
Throughout this whole incident, the best work was offered by two people who could care less about proving “women can do it, too!”
Artfldgr wasn’t trying to prove that “women can invent, too!” when he posted the list of the masculine characteristics which foster inventiveness, and of the feminine characteristics which hamper it. (Bot Joyanna sure stooped very low by ignoring his great list, which you can use to help make all children more inventive!, and instead using it to play the, “Let’s praise the people who agree with me, in order to shame those who didn’t!” game.
And infidel wasn’t trying to prove that “women can invent, too!” when he posted his lovely link to the effective thought habits, which can help make all children more inventive!
When you compare infidel’s and artfldgr’s contributiosn to this issue, you realize that the “Women can invent, too!” camp always seeks to drag the issue to the lowest possible standard.
Did you notice that they all ignored the greatness of those lists? I sure did.
Oh, and the privacy thing. *chuckles* Guess that’s just another “man’s game” she wants to play by women’s rules.
When asked to name ONE woman, she didn’t play by man’s rules and name 40,000 women as if it were easy. In fact, her number one fighting tactic is “make my detractors feel bad.”
“Look at me! I can mess things up! I can reduce everything to its lowest possible standard!” is the motto of a very specific unhealthy disorder.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Anyone who wants to argue the merits of Hedi Lamarr should visit the previous articles on the topic.
The purpose of this thread, as proposed by amfortas, is whether or not EG should be censured in some way for aggressive investigations of a fellow author on MND.
FYI, the issue of whether Hedi Lemarr invented this or that was immaterial the moment EG admitted that it was POSSIBLE a woman could think conceptually and originate ideas that advance the human condition.
For the purposes of developing a Principle of Masculinity (as proposed by EG here), I simply need to understand the range of the possible as opposed to the impossible.
In this way it is possible to draw “points” on a graph that describe a pattern observable by a human being like you and me.
Each “point” describes a potential boundary between the “possible” and the “impossible” as observed by a human being.
Q. Is it possible for a woman to invent?
A. Yes.
So the point is made like a dot on the boundary line of a wave. Thus if you plot this and other “points” on a 2-dimensional graph, you might begin to see a wave pattern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In EG’s language, you might say that “points” are “True” and anything else is “Not True”.
This makes it easy to see the picture: just add up the dots, and draw a line around them. And if you’re really clever, you can infer a pattern from the picture you have made.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Mike LaSalle — Funny thing is, when you look at it in terms of the unseen masculine and feminine principles, you don’t even need to discuss whether “women” can invent, becuas eit’s obvious they can. It’s only the people who are vulnerable to certain types of thought processes who need to PROVE that women can invent.
Think of it like a woman falling in love with a man. The insecure woman constantly forces him to prove his love to her, while the secure and confident woman gracefully and easily presumes he loves her and eschews the need for proof.
(1) “For the purposes of developing a Principle of Masculinity, I simply need to understand the range of the possible as opposed to the impossible.”
Possible / Impossible is weak thought when compared to Probable / Improbable. Game Theorists don’t dwell on possibility, but instead focus on the odds.
If you ask a Possible / Impossible guy whether you should draw for your flush on the river, he might say, “Yes, because it’s possible you’ll win.” But if you ask a Probable / Improbable guy, he’ll say, “Are you kidding? You have only a 20% chance of ctaching it, and this guy is such a loose cannon, he’s going to screw up for you!”
Either way, it’s 20% chance to win, but the first guy twists the truth. The second guy, however, merely states it.
(2) Joyanna’s privacy? If she were a tough guy, it wouldn’t be an issue. What’s that sound? It’s the lowest possible standard clamoring for attention, pretending as if it were the greatest possible one!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:21 am
MMX said:
“Let’s praise the people who agree with me, in order to shame those who didn’t!” game
Seems to be many games going on here. Veiled threats from the “editor” as well (classy).
This thread is a microcosm of why the MRM doesn’t have a hope in hell of working.
Do I have the answers? Nope. However, this is obviously not helping. It just makes us all look foolish and immature. Guilt by association so to speak. I think I’ll take my leave for awhile to ponder whether this site is worth my time and effort. NYM threads were midly amusing, good theatre, an exploration into the mind of a psychotic. This however wouldn’t even make it to off off Broadway.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“Possible / Impossible is weak thought when compared to Probable / Improbable. Game Theorists don’t dwell on possibility, but instead focus on the odds.”
Huh.
I thought we were talking about Archetypal Masculine Principles?
Treating Principles as though they were a lottery seems – well – materialistic.
Actually, the observed phenomenon of Anthropic Bias would seem to pop your “odds” like a fat balloon.
According to the Anthropic Principle, everything you observe – your own existence – is the end result of “impossible” odds.
But – hey – if you can’t trust the “odds”, what can you trust?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Mike LaSalle — “I thought we were talking about Archetypal Masculine Principles?”
Yes, we are.
“Treating Principles as though they were a lottery seems – well – materialistic. ”
Well, do you know what the alternative is?
(1) Johnny says, “Taking risks is masculine, because men have a higher probability of doing it!”
Objector says, “Given that I’ve found this one little woman who also takes risks, I’ve devoided yoru argument! Therefore, nothing can be learned from Johnny’s assertion, and the status quo is maintained.”
Johnny replies, “But if you follow my ideas, you could teach everyone the value of taking risks!”
Objector replies, “Sorry. It’s better to sit still and do nothing than to let life-changing knowledge, based on probability, to change the world for the better.”
July 11th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I never investigated Joyanna and never knew until just now from someone calling me that Williams was her maiden name. when I wrote that article I just flipped Williams in by accident. I could just as well have flipped Jones or Smith. I don’t have the resources to investigate people. If I had done it would I just put her maiden name in and nothing else? To what avail. I haven’t read this blog since comment #10 which I felt was a good place to leave her tantrum. To what avail would I investigate her, use her maiden name and nothing else? The lack of male logic mixed in with feminine hysteria seems to know no bounds.
My blog the Truth pointed out how lies are created and accepted and here we have a fresh incidence of it. I never investigateed anyone, and I stated clearly I had no axe to grind with Joyanna, and didn’t even comment on this blog.
Use your heads gentlemen, those of youwho have no joined the hysteria.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
gentleman…I’m going to respectfully move on to more trivial matters. I’m very sensetive to false accussations.(i was falselly accussed once..not pretty). I believe joyanna offered her maiden name..and in the context of george allready proving heidi lemar was not a blonde bombshell..also investigated the lineage she claims she comes from…no malice what so ever!!!
we need to be very carefull with accussations/ fallowed by mob hysteria…
as there may be many readers who have experienced it.
I do feel we need to clarify these points with both parties..
July 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Amen people, please move on to more trivial matters. Oh wait…can I say that? I hope I didn’t offend anyone. No wait please don’t send the ACLU after me…I still enjoy reading both the aforementioned’s posts.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
To amfortas,
I would have expected that yo uwould have asked me if I had done it rather than assume I had done it and expect me to apologize. Don’t save me a seat at the bar. It’s over.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I asked for an explanation… and I got one.
EG “flipped in” the wrong name, and it just happens that this was in fact her actual name.
Coincidence. I am willing to accept that answer. No harm, no foul.
But – if we grant ‘coincidence’ – then what do we make of MMX’s plea to respect the ‘odds’?
You must admit, the odds of EG “flipping in” Joyanna’s real last name out of the blue – well, they must be pretty remote.
But even the remotest possibilities must be included as Truth – simply because it is POSSIBLE.
Point. Set. Match.
July 11th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Yes, Mike and the same day that I wrote the article using Williams as her name I also lit the gas under the wrong pot. I guess I’m lucky I wan’t accused of attempted arson.
July 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Badger said, “Seems to be many games going on here. Veiled threats from the “editor” as well”
I was responding to christianj and the other names that I recognize from the days of yore.
MND is not a haven for misogynists. I won’t have it.
The hysterical over-reaction on the part of many contributors to this thread is – as christianj pointed-out – reminiscent of an earlier event in the history of this website.
My purpose in making the reference to those days is to demonstrate that I will follow words with actions in the event that I think the site is moving in the wrong direction.
Since the decline and fall of MND’s forum/colosseum, I have reintroduced commenting features to MND gradually. Over time, it appears that some of these old provocateurs have returned, and have found a leader in EG.
That’s fine as it goes, but let it be known: this is not the EG show. This is MND.
I mentioned the AH article because in it he references his Gaia theory of the Men’s Movement, in which, as groups of men come together and grow into a cohesive virtual entity, competition between ideas within the entity will be such that the structure will divide into two, thereby spawning two cohesive offspring.
Get the point?
July 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Well, there you are: it’s easy to jump to conclusions in a vacuum.
EG – my apologies for jumping to such an easy conclusion. Now that you mention it, the very idea that you could jump headfirst into an ‘investigation’ of JA’s background seems incredible.
But you see – it was possible. It IS possible. And the fact that you conjured up her actual last name could be attributed to an inconsquential event in an unguided universe, or to an anecdotal confirmation that a “group mind” exists somewhere in the ether of our collective human presence on this earth.
Of course you are welcome to continue posting to MND. In fact, I hope that you will. Your articles are invariably stimulating and they bring out the fight in me.
Thank you again for your kind participation.
July 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Yes… the odds…. what are the odds that EG is telling the truth or that he his lying?
You can stack them anyway you want… this is Schrödinger’s cat!
If you don’t LOVE this conundrum, then you are intellectually dry as a fricking bone.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
something smells fishy with the whole williams maiden name affair.(if thats her real maiden name), which she says it is , then it must be true right???
As a survivor of a false rape accussation..I’ve studied at lenght..What makes a women lie about something so vile…
Well there are late for work reasons, revenge reasons, and women under alot of stress will lie with such ease that they believe themselves.
E.G certainly put the heat on joyanna.
So either joyanna under extreme attack pressure cracked out with a lie, or E.G researched her name???? or mikes group mind theory exists somewhere in the ether of our collective human presense on this earth..
I’ve had some ethereal knowledge of things before and truly believe as one changes oneself…one changes the cosmos…
July 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
OMG! The Irony, the absurdity of it all!
The best entertainment ever!
This must be why agreed to come to Earth, to be front row on this one!
Oh I am still laughing!
I never would have bet on it, but I sure would have been disappointed to to have seen all of this for myself.
I am glad that so many men now not only get EG’s point, but gauging their reactions to all of this, they get my point and wonder why there is such belligerent resistance to observations of a literally Impoverished Old Man who cares about Men seeing themselves for what they are, when they will never be in a position to make any impact in his life…short of satisfaction in seeing us on the road to natural balance and peace.
It pains me to see Elder making errors (which I discounted when I read “Williams“), trying to light the wrong burner, falling down racing for a bus and breaking his arm.
A man does not live forever, and so many live to never see the fruits of their hopes and ideas.
Other men never get to meet that man whose ideas wind up shaping their world.
Because, a Man does not live forever.
In his sunset years, all he knows is ignored by those rushing past thinking they know the way, making his prior mistakes.
Honor your Elders, do not attack them children were once taught.
Consume their words, give them time to root in your thought.
I did, even though I thought him a crazy old man.
Turns out he was the only sane message I found. Consistent, principled, foundational.
That is a leader of MEN. Because men do not want to be told everything, they follow a WAY a path, not a program. Because the world’s obstacles and occurrences are not certain.
So why then…why have the words spoken by a man you would dismiss as a crazy fool if you passed him on the street have incurred so much wrath? So much straining at the gnat (the exception) as Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees for?
What has been gained by the straining and second guessing?
I see what.
That G-D exists and still rules in the affairs of Men and Women.
That those who abandon and refuse return to principles behave unprincipled, then they reap the reward.
Here is all the evidence we need.
Perhaps this is the end of the degeneration of comments?
I do not know.
I know a couple of things, those who I do not think can teach me anything I have been happier not reading or commenting.
Those who are trying to teach me something make me ask more questions about their words.
I am comfortable with that, now that I found the character of a leader here.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Verbiage will be purged for the greater good.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I just finished skimming all of the posts. This is the first time I perused this thread.
Interestingly, the chance that Joyanna was lying about her last name never entered my head.
Now that Scott mentions it, it would be easy to see the motive. Joyanna would have a an ethical club to beat the crap out of EG with: that he investigated her. The previous 50 posts prove that the motive would have merit.
Like sgt Schultz “I know nothing!”. But, I do have suspicions. I have seen Joyanna ‘taking it on the chin’ on this website before. From what I have seen she has enough salt in her personality to take a few hits without resorting to such a bizarre lie.
I think the odds that she would lie & falsely claim that Williams was her last name to give herself ammo is a long-shot.
It also seems like a long-shot that EQ would “guess” her last name. Williams seems like it should be 7th or so in most common names behind Jones and Smith and several others I can’t think of right now.
If I were to lay the odds out it would be thusly:
1.5% Joyanna falsely claimed Williams to be her last name, 6% EG randomly tossed in Williams, and 92.5% chance well that EG arrived at the name Williams by something other than random chance–and that Williams is Joyanna’s last name.
Whatever the truth, it won’t be solved here & now.
Moving on to different fodder:
What’s odd is that I’m seeing a lot of posts about “don’t apologize to women they got us in this situation” and a lot of “we don’t need women’s help” to fix the injustices men face.
You people sound like a crotchety old black man talking about “trusting whitey.” Or worst you’re starting to sound like feminists bitching about men.
The simple matter is that if EG investigated Joyanna, he does owe her an apology. And that’s not chivalry, it’s respect. Joyanna has taken some rough hits squarely on the chin and has earned my respect.
Isn’t the battle cry of MRA’s that it shouldn’t matter what’s between your legs to be a parent? Why should it matter now? If Joyanna has been wronged she deserves an apology same as anybody.
And quite frankly, we DO need women’s help to fight these injustices. A few months back I saw Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream speech” at the reflecting pool.
There was a TON of whites in the crowd. Why? Because they were kind-hearted people who realized that blacks were facing true oppression.
How many whites do you see at a Louis-Farrakhan rally? Zero? How come–maybe because he’s a black bigot? Seeing the type of “women bad, men fantastic” drivel is making me wonder if some MRA’s will be leading us down the path to nowheres-ville just like Farrakhan did for the blacks.
The simple matter is that we live in very very selfish times. Nobody cares about anything other than what affects them.
Men are now the bottom class of society. It’s official. Like the black civil rights movement we need help from every person we can get.
You should be applauding women like Joyanna, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Cathy Young, the women at the IWF, and all of the sisters, aunts, moms, second wives, and paternal-side grandma’s who make up nearly half of the men’s rights movement and fight for the men in their life.
Without them we wouldn’t have had even nearly the mild successes we have had. Jeez you’re giving the title MRA a bad smell.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Synchronicity: Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally inexplicable to the person or persons experiencing them. The events would also have to suggest some underlying pattern in order to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Swiss psychologist Carl Jung.
Carl Jung coined the word to describe what he called “temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events.” Jung variously described synchronicity as an “‘acausal connecting principle’” (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct causality), “meaningful coincidence” and “acausal parallelism”. Jung introduced the concept in his 1952 paper “Synchronicity — An Acausal Connecting Principle”, though he had been considering the concept for almost thirty years.[1]
It differs from mere coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic expressed through meaningful relationships or events.
It was a principle that Jung felt encompassed his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious [2], in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlay the whole of human experience and history — social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual.
Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were not merely due to chance but, instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic. [3]
One of Jung’s favourite quotes on Synchronicity was from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, in which the White Queen says to Alice: “It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards”. [4]
Events that happen which appear at first to be coincidence but are later found to be causally related are termed incoincident.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 11th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I’ve reached a spiritual high from all this enlightenment..thank you mike for holding this forum for I believe it to be a most profound experience…
casting off the shackles of psychological castration is an amasingly liberateing experience…I recommend it to all!!!
and jackal…the good women who want to help us should and do understand some men are quite torn up (and at times express it)about the injustices that have come upon them..
July 11th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
According to this site, Williams is the third most common surname in the USA. It beats out Jones, Brown, and Davis.
http://genealogy.about.com/library/weekly/aa_common_surnames.htm
July 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
So, if you were going to guess someone’s name, your first three guesses should be, in order, Smith, Johnson, and Williams. These are ranked 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
So EG’s claim is not as improbable as it sounds.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
In other words, if we assume that her name really is Williams, and if we were to guess her name, and if we took one of the top three names at random, we would have a 33% chance of guessing it correctly. If we took one of the top 5 names at random, we would have a 20% chance of guessing it correctly. If we took one of the top 10 names at random (equally weighted to make the math simpler) we would have a 10% change of guessing correctly. Still not bad odds. So I think we should give EG the benefit of the doubt.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
If this were a court of law, I think that 10 or 20% would probably constitute reasonable doubt, and the accused, EG, would be set free. If we don’t know for sure her name really is Williams, then we have even more “reasonable doubt”. If it’s just his word against hers, there wouldn’t even be a trial in the first place.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Also, “williams” for “adams” would be understandable if you were tired and were reaching for the name in the back of your mind.
I am satisfied that no ill was intended.
I also think there’s an element of synchronicity at work.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Interesting what you can find on the internet these days. Maybe this was all a comedy of errors.
It does seem strange with all of his postings about character and a godly path that EG would investigate somebody.
One last point, just because Williams is third in genealogy doesn’t mean that he had a 33% chance of getting it right. It would have depended upon Joyanna’s chance of HAVING that name. If Williams represents 10% of the surnames out there, he would have had a 10% chance of getting the bullseye.
Although Williams is still way more common then I woulda thought.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Jackal, my analysis is based on the assumption that her name *is* Williams, as she claims. We take that as a given for the sake of argument. So if her name is Williams, then her chance of having that name is 100%.
If Williams is not her name, there’s no reason to believe he investigated her and came up with Williams.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
If Williams’s only number 10% of the population, then the odds would be 10%.
In effect if I rolled a 6 sided die, and hid the result behind my hand you would have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly, even if you were only guessing between numbers 4,5,6, or only 5,6.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Lordy, the conversations that go on when you are asleep.
Apologies are hard to come by, so I will attempt to push-start the process by saying I am sorry if I have offended EG by suggesting that he ‘investigated’ Joyanna, and sorry if so many noses were put out of joint. Offence wasn’t intended but I guess it came with the questioning of the privacy issue.
As for it being like a false accusation, and by implication I am being accused of making a false accusation (!) well, I am not offended by that one, having really been falsely accused before myself, I can see a huge difference. So no aplogy for that one. Sorry.
I am astonished and delighted at the turn of the conversation to probability and game theory, and the sortie into Freud am Jungland. MND has a great reputation for generating so many twists and turns in its threads, from many wonderful minds, including EG’s, but it does tend to depart from the point. I am sorry that EG doesn’t want to have a beer with me. (The beer offer is still open old fella)
I am sorry that EG doesn’t see the point. But EG doesn’t have to be sorry as there are quite a few who don’t see EG’s points either so there is a balance achieved somewhere, I am sure. Almost sure. Possibly. I’m working out the odds that there is an equilibrium in all this somewhere out past the Andromeda Galaxy or maybe in the Implicate Order.
EG has better acolytes than Christ, that’s odds on. I wonder if Jesus would have been pleased if St Peter had gone all around the traps when asked if he knew JC, instead of simply denying it. What interpretations the theologists would have had to come up with. Maybe Peter should have tried the ‘name out of the unseen’ trick. Its a good one. It would have had those centurions scratching their heads that’s for sure. Chap 23 v.9 “Yeah, they did scratch their heads in wonderment and weleased Woger”
This mix up of ‘guess the commonest name’ and shove it into conversation even though irrelevant to the arguement, could so easily come unstuck if Joyanna’s maiden name was Zwiklovsky. If you are going to play the odds at 50/50 its not much of a fun time, but 10,426:1, would have been SO impressive. I might even have fallen down on my knees infront of EG myself and begged forgiveness.
EG, a simple apology would have done, even for inadvertently causing grief. Is it so hard? I am a little incredulous with the guesswork you offer but then who knows what pops into view in the great unseen.
An arguement has been put forward that EG is trying hard to form a sound MRA set of principles that aid men achieve some status. I admire EG. I have said it before and may even say it again sometimes. He is busy generating much thoughful consideration of men and woman in the world, much of it positive. That doesn’t mean he is always right in everything of course. Few of us get there every time. His lists of things to do – as other’s lists do, do help men. Its a painful process, getting to the start line. But is this an excuse for his attack?
But folks. I am sorry that hardly anyone has stuck to the point. What of YOUR privacy here?
Mike has come in for unfair and unreasonable stick in some of the posts here. This is the Mike who has carefully maintained the privacy of every one of us, while enabling a full and free flow of good conversation. He has not seen the need to disclose odd bits of personal info about any of us, despite having cupboards bulging with the stuff.
And he expects us to be adult about it. He expects us to trust him. He hasn’t let any of us down. He demonstrates his trustworthyness – indeed his masculinity. Still he gets stick ! Astonishing. EG has let us down. Not a hanging offence, but offensive nevertheless. he wriggles like a worm on a hook. Not manly. Yet he is defended. Not astonishing. Sad.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
*( Mike LaSalle) — “Q. Is it possible for a woman to invent?”
Yes, it is.
Could you please name ten (that’s charitable, don’t you think?) –
INVENTIONS.
By women?
That affect and benefit your daily life.
As a man.
(And please do not use anything by Madame Currie.)
Go for it!
July 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
PS –
Mike LaSalle has every man’s back here, as near as I can tell.
He gives more than he takes.
That is rare, indeed.
I’m curious about how it will all evolve.
You?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Jackal said, “If Williams’s only number 10% of the population, then the odds would be 10%.”
*What* odds would be only 10%?
If 10% of the people are called Williams, and if we took a person from the general population at *random*, there would be a 10% chance their name is Williams.
But Joyanna is not a person selected at random. She is a Williams (so she says, and we assume it to be true). So the % of Williams’s is not relevant. The relevant question is not what are the odds of *having* that name, but what are the odds of *guessing* that name. That depends on were the name is on the list of common names (i.e. where it is on the list I cited) not on how many people actually have that name.
For example, let’s take the name Smith. According to the link I cited above, there are about 3 million Smiths in the USA. That’s out of a population of say, 300 million. i.e. about 1% are Smiths.
But, if I had to guess the name of a person at random, I would choose Smith every time, even though only 1% of the people are Smiths, because I know Smith is the most common name. In other words, I’d choose Smith 100% of the time, even though I know only 1% are Smiths.
Ask someone who has not seen the list to guess the name of a person at random, they would likely choose something like Smith, Jones, Brown, or maybe Williams, because they know these are common names. The name Smith would could up a lot more than 1% of the time even though only 1% of the people are Smiths. So there will be a disproportionate number of people guessing Smith.
So the key is what names will people guess. And that depends on what people perceive to be a common name. That in turn depends a lot on where the name ranks on the list.
The example of the 6 sided die is not valid here because it’s about what names come to *mind*.
If I asked people to pick any number from 1 to 1000, I’d bet that the numbers 3 or 7 would come up more often that say 421 or 7942, because 3 and 7 are more ‘popular’ with people. But if I had a computer generate the numbers at random (or if I had a 1000 sided die), the numbers 3, 7, 421, and 7942 would all have an equal chance of coming up.
The computer and the die do not work like the human mind. The human mind will pick 3, 7 or Smith or Williams more often that you would expect them to come up by pure chance. Because these numbers and names are more popular, they come to mind more often. The list I used is merely an indication that Williams is a very popular name.
Also, Williams is more similar to Adams that Smith, Johnson, Jones, Brown, Davis, or any of the others in the top 10.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Oops: 7942 is out of the range 1 to 1000. OK, let’s say 794 instead of 7942.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Someone said: “But folks. I am sorry that hardly anyone has stuck to the point. What of YOUR privacy here?”
Nobody can get any information about me unless Mike gives it out. And I trust him not to do that. Even then, Mike only has my email address, not my actual name. You can always get a hotmail or yahoo address and use that, and then he won’t even have your regular email address. So I’m not worried about my privacy.
An computer security expert from McAfee once said you should have about 20 different email addresses. Why not at least have a few?
Can’t we just give EG the benefit of the doubt and move on?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Ah, but what of the Rule of Thumb Principle?
Whose absurdities are we talking about here? Douglas Adams’ or Joyanna Adams’?
A hitch-hike is in order.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:39 am
what are the odds that williams is not her name..and she made a false accussation under pressure from the blog.
Women under any sort of pressure is the number 1 cause of a false accussation..
I’ve read of false rape accussations because the women was late for work!!!
July 12th, 2007 at 5:53 am
were talking about an accussation that will villify an old man for something he did or did not do..and all options must be considered…
I’m not one to jump into hysterical lyncheing mode that easy/ if at all.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Dad’s with girls…here you go:
Alphabet blocks Adeline D. T. Whitney 1882
Apgar tests, which evaluate a baby’s health upon birth Virginia Apgar 1952
Chocolate-chip cookies Ruth Wakefield 1930
Circular saw Tabitha Babbitt 1812
Dishwasher Josephine Cochran 1872
Disposable diaper Marion Donovan 1950
Electric hot water heater Ida Forbes 1917
Elevated railway Mary Walton 1881
Engine muffler El Dorado Jones 1917
Fire escape Anna Connelly 1887
Globes Ellen Fitz 1875
Ironing board Sarah Boone 1892
Kevlar, a steel-like fiber used in radial tires, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests Stephanie Kwolek 1966
Life raft Maria Beaseley 1882
Liquid Paper®, a quick-drying liquid used to correct mistakes printed on paper Bessie Nesmith 1951
Locomotive chimney Mary Walton 1879
Medical syringe Letitia Geer 1899
Paper-bag-making machine Margaret Knight 1871
Rolling pin Catherine Deiner 1891
Rotary engine Margaret Knight 1904
Scotchgard™ fabric protector Patsy O. Sherman 1956
Snugli® baby carrier Ann Moore 1965
Street-cleaning machine Florence Parpart 1900
Submarine lamp and telescope Sarah Mather 1845
Windshield wiper Mary Anderson 1903
Its a few more than 10 but easy enough.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:12 am
infidel says: “Nobody can get any information about me unless Mike gives it out.”
Or someone researches you and puts the info in a comment. People are increasingly vulnerable to someone else’s snooping.