You really should have included the second tweet in that thread, Steven Jarvis. I will quote it below for ease of reading.
"I take issue with calling Jarvis a grifter, because that term implies people buy what he's selling.
Failed grifter would be more appropriate, if we use Jarvis's definition."
As you can very clearly see, for the sake of argument I already defer to your definition of "grifting" before you made my entire point for me with this little rant. You even plug your own laughable self-published vanity project to knock home my point about the complete failure your own attempted grift.
Aesop's Sour Grapes parable comes to mind.
If success through authorship is out of reach, success through authorship must not be a good thing.
Thanks for the laugh, Steven Jarvis. It's the only thing this blog is good for.
I measure success in the positive relationships that I have built, the people I have helped and the reputation I have amongst peers, not how much money has been earned for selling out core humanity values as a suicide troll to pay my way through school.
The compulsive need to put others down only manifests in ppl with a desperately poor self esteem. This is possibly more about self deception than its about convincing anyone else.
I doubt it is effective towards quelling your internal pain.
What an amazing observation, though I think it's a bit misdirected, considering I've focused my response to Steven Jarvis's blog post that starts with a rather sad attempt at body shaming me to simply discussing what appears to be his professional failings.
This blog has thousands and thousands of words strewn out over months of posts filled with vitriolic attack after vitriolic attack, and even now, as a response to my comment, he continues with completely fantasized insinuations that I am "selling out core humanity values as a suicide troll to pay my way through school" not a week after my uncle committed suicide.
What might you say to a man who says he hasn't much in the way of close friends or good relationships with extended family who runs a Substack and write such vile blog posts about people in that way? Would such a person also have desperately poor self esteem, in your opinion? Would he be trying to deceive himself that his failures are actually successes? Do you think it touches his internal pain?
I am sorry if you don't have many close personal friends Michelangelo.
Perhaps if you didn't do illegal work coordinating large scale harassment against Jim Stewartson, you'd be likable and not needing to profile your own crotch for sophomoric entertainment.
Save your concern. I have plenty of close friends, Steven.
"I don’t really maintain close friendships" Steven Jarvis
Let's talk about you, Steven, since this is your blog, and you have some much to say about people not having close friends. Why aren't you likeable enough to have close friends? Is this why your blog is so angry and full of bile?
I deal with classic batman style villains such as yourself, which means documenting YOUR anger and bile directed at the people your entire cadre of cartoon characters targets.
It isn't "projection" to quote you, Steven. What is projection is to assume that I don't have close friendships because you don't have close friendships. Any decent "behavior analyst" would know that.
Exploiting a family tragedy to defend your trolling is low.
I can see how profoundly affected you were when the very next day, went about your morning rounds, bashing your usual targets.
Your attempts to confuse your emotion-fueled ad hominem attacks with Steven's objective observations are not effective. The difference is more obvious than you realize.
Steven Jarvis calls me a "suicide troll" for behaviors he himself engages in, and pointing toward his insistence in using such language while he knows that I'm experiencing such a loss, from his obsession with me and my twitter feed, is not exploiting my family tragedy.
I hope you never have to experience the amount of familial suicides I have, but if you do, live with the knowledge that I will not judge you for how your grief manifests.
I am not surprised that you side stepped my questions, as there is no way you could answer them in a way that wouldn't make Steven Jarvis look bad.
And my condolences, if you are indeed being sincere as this is the first I am hearing of this.
I lost an aunt, then her spouse two weeks apart and then my cousin from the same family several years later in the same manner. Talk to your spouse, your friend or someone if you need to. We all have different ways of coping. I remember being intently angry at my uncle considering the circumstances, very sad with my aunt and cousin.
I'm not side stepping, I just won't get baited into childish arguments.
Jarvis does not engage in the same behavior as you. There is a marked difference, as explained.
A person who makes references to suicide to benefit their argument, but is otherwise unaffected, is a suicide troll.
You are correct that I do judge your conduct. Your reply to Jarvis' good wishes is disgusting and negates the all the other hogwash you try to peddle. It doesn't take much, does it?
You sound like one of these "Let's not exploit the tragedy of a school shooting to enact gun laws" folks. Same exact logic. Besides, am I supposed to simply accept the well wishes of a man who has been attempting to body shame me with multiple blog posts about my genitals?
That's not what Pizzagate was. Pizzagate is the conspiracy theory that Hilary Clinton and John Podesta were abusing children in the non-existent basement of a pizza restaurant in DC called Comet Ping-Pong. The claims originated from people having some really, uh, interesting interpretations of hacked emails from Podesta. Remember? A guy went in with an assault rifle to "save" children he thought were being abused. Good overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Also, Mike's book isn't about Trump. Mike's book is about the Qanon conspiracy theory and those who believe in it. Trump happens to be a main character within the conspiracy theory, yes, but the book wasn't about him. Also, the Q shaman is on the UK version of the cover. I gather that the reason is to appeal to a non-US audience. Like it or not, the Q shaman was a pretty recognizable figure for people who do not live in the US. Heck, I knew right away who the Q shaman was on J6 based on just hearing him described by the QAA guys. Friends of mine in the UK know who he is because I all caps "screamed" into the group chat "THE Q SHAMAN IS WITH THOSE PEOPLE STORMING THE CAPITOL!!" while I was concurrently doom-scrolling twitter on my nightmare rectangle and watching live coverage on TV.
And if you want to debate the basic merits of something in the future, at least have the decency to read the material.
In fact, go and read the article. I spent over six months finding all the associated threads that showed how the conspiracy formed that night, November 4th, using court documents, books, news articles and some primary sources.
Is this your way of telling me you didn't read the article, because you didn't actually read the article.
According to my stats no one has clicked on the link to read what should take you about fifteen minutes to have read, so no Pugs, your arguments are irrelevant without having done the basic research.
This is literally what you wrote: "My work was digging through the second core conspiracy of the Q Op, Pizzagate, which was developed beginning with Sean Hannity and Trump on stage at CPAC 2015, and culminated with an acquired missing person report via AMI’s Catch and Kill scheme featuring a credible identity for “Maria” one of two Trump-Epstein alleged victims, whose last known location was Nash’s Pizza and Grocery at Waterbury, CT, March 20, 1993."
That isn't Pizzagate. Yeah, there's the theory out there that Epstein and Trump assaulted a teenage girl together. Hell, I agree that's it's pretty credible. But that isn't Pizzagate.
Also, feel free to point out what you think Mike has made up about anything.
I realized you may have not been aware that there is a large link, titled Weaponizing Social Media, you must click on to read the article detailing the things you wish to argue. Hope this helps so we can discuss the topic of the origin and purpose of the Pizzagate conspiracy, which Mike knows exceedingly little of himself.
This is like arguing with a toddler to eat her veggies.
You can't argue the contents of an article that you haven't bothered to read Pugs. If I gave you a quiz on it, you'd likely fail because you are too interested in the reaction to a conspiracy, and not how or why the conspiracy formed. If you read the article we can discuss it like adults.
Mike has no interest in the origins or purpose of Q because he isn't a legitimate researcher, rather a grifter that would focus only on the fringe instead of the facts.
Not a "her." No doubt you've seen my Twitter bio multiple times since I know you've creep-stalked my account for screenshots. They/Them. Hell, I even mentioned being a non-binary queer person in a comment a few weeks ago. Can't pretend you didn't know, dude.
When you post something to someone else or someone else posts in response to your thread, then I see what you say. I have been to your actual profile two or three times in the past six months.
If you interacted much less with the highly noxious accounts I do keep tabs on, you wouldn't ever appear on my radar. That is of course your choice as it is mine to cover what they are up to.
Ew 6 months? I didn't even know who you were till March dude. Also, if you think you have the authority to tell a middle-aged adult whom they should/shouldn't interact with online, I've got a bridge to sell you. You built a conspiracy theory around random people, that's on you buddy. Nothing you write about is in the service of "saving democracy." All you amount to is a Jim Stewartson acolyte. From where I'm standing, it's not a good look. If you really actually care about saving democracy as you say, log off and DO something. Real lives are at risk. As I've said before, November isn't looking great. 2024 is looking even worse. Be part of the solution for a change. I'll over look the fact that you're a conservative. My dad is still fairly conservative, but over the years he's stopped voting for republicans. Go out and build community with your neighbors. Plans for bad times, while hoping for the best. If I remember right, you're in TX right? Do you have community support if the power goes out, or you run out of water, etc? Those are things you really should be focusing on, rather than whatever all this is. Help change the dialogue with other gun owners to turn towards safety and regulation. There are things you can do in your own community to help. This blog ain't it.
Night, Steven. Hug that beautiful family for me 😘
You really should have included the second tweet in that thread, Steven Jarvis. I will quote it below for ease of reading.
"I take issue with calling Jarvis a grifter, because that term implies people buy what he's selling.
Failed grifter would be more appropriate, if we use Jarvis's definition."
As you can very clearly see, for the sake of argument I already defer to your definition of "grifting" before you made my entire point for me with this little rant. You even plug your own laughable self-published vanity project to knock home my point about the complete failure your own attempted grift.
Aesop's Sour Grapes parable comes to mind.
If success through authorship is out of reach, success through authorship must not be a good thing.
Thanks for the laugh, Steven Jarvis. It's the only thing this blog is good for.
I measure success in the positive relationships that I have built, the people I have helped and the reputation I have amongst peers, not how much money has been earned for selling out core humanity values as a suicide troll to pay my way through school.
The compulsive need to put others down only manifests in ppl with a desperately poor self esteem. This is possibly more about self deception than its about convincing anyone else.
I doubt it is effective towards quelling your internal pain.
What an amazing observation, though I think it's a bit misdirected, considering I've focused my response to Steven Jarvis's blog post that starts with a rather sad attempt at body shaming me to simply discussing what appears to be his professional failings.
This blog has thousands and thousands of words strewn out over months of posts filled with vitriolic attack after vitriolic attack, and even now, as a response to my comment, he continues with completely fantasized insinuations that I am "selling out core humanity values as a suicide troll to pay my way through school" not a week after my uncle committed suicide.
What might you say to a man who says he hasn't much in the way of close friends or good relationships with extended family who runs a Substack and write such vile blog posts about people in that way? Would such a person also have desperately poor self esteem, in your opinion? Would he be trying to deceive himself that his failures are actually successes? Do you think it touches his internal pain?
I am sorry if you don't have many close personal friends Michelangelo.
Perhaps if you didn't do illegal work coordinating large scale harassment against Jim Stewartson, you'd be likable and not needing to profile your own crotch for sophomoric entertainment.
Save your concern. I have plenty of close friends, Steven.
"I don’t really maintain close friendships" Steven Jarvis
Let's talk about you, Steven, since this is your blog, and you have some much to say about people not having close friends. Why aren't you likeable enough to have close friends? Is this why your blog is so angry and full of bile?
Projection, Maccabee. Projection.
I deal with classic batman style villains such as yourself, which means documenting YOUR anger and bile directed at the people your entire cadre of cartoon characters targets.
It isn't "projection" to quote you, Steven. What is projection is to assume that I don't have close friendships because you don't have close friendships. Any decent "behavior analyst" would know that.
@Maccabee
Exploiting a family tragedy to defend your trolling is low.
I can see how profoundly affected you were when the very next day, went about your morning rounds, bashing your usual targets.
Your attempts to confuse your emotion-fueled ad hominem attacks with Steven's objective observations are not effective. The difference is more obvious than you realize.
Your response makes no sense.
Steven Jarvis calls me a "suicide troll" for behaviors he himself engages in, and pointing toward his insistence in using such language while he knows that I'm experiencing such a loss, from his obsession with me and my twitter feed, is not exploiting my family tragedy.
I hope you never have to experience the amount of familial suicides I have, but if you do, live with the knowledge that I will not judge you for how your grief manifests.
I am not surprised that you side stepped my questions, as there is no way you could answer them in a way that wouldn't make Steven Jarvis look bad.
And my condolences, if you are indeed being sincere as this is the first I am hearing of this.
I lost an aunt, then her spouse two weeks apart and then my cousin from the same family several years later in the same manner. Talk to your spouse, your friend or someone if you need to. We all have different ways of coping. I remember being intently angry at my uncle considering the circumstances, very sad with my aunt and cousin.
I'm not side stepping, I just won't get baited into childish arguments.
Jarvis does not engage in the same behavior as you. There is a marked difference, as explained.
A person who makes references to suicide to benefit their argument, but is otherwise unaffected, is a suicide troll.
You are correct that I do judge your conduct. Your reply to Jarvis' good wishes is disgusting and negates the all the other hogwash you try to peddle. It doesn't take much, does it?
You sound like one of these "Let's not exploit the tragedy of a school shooting to enact gun laws" folks. Same exact logic. Besides, am I supposed to simply accept the well wishes of a man who has been attempting to body shame me with multiple blog posts about my genitals?
I suggest you take some time off to deal with your family tragedy instead of what you are doing here.
What I'm doing here is laughing at a man who can't stop talking about my genitals, Steven. It's very cathartic actually.
That's not what Pizzagate was. Pizzagate is the conspiracy theory that Hilary Clinton and John Podesta were abusing children in the non-existent basement of a pizza restaurant in DC called Comet Ping-Pong. The claims originated from people having some really, uh, interesting interpretations of hacked emails from Podesta. Remember? A guy went in with an assault rifle to "save" children he thought were being abused. Good overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Also, Mike's book isn't about Trump. Mike's book is about the Qanon conspiracy theory and those who believe in it. Trump happens to be a main character within the conspiracy theory, yes, but the book wasn't about him. Also, the Q shaman is on the UK version of the cover. I gather that the reason is to appeal to a non-US audience. Like it or not, the Q shaman was a pretty recognizable figure for people who do not live in the US. Heck, I knew right away who the Q shaman was on J6 based on just hearing him described by the QAA guys. Friends of mine in the UK know who he is because I all caps "screamed" into the group chat "THE Q SHAMAN IS WITH THOSE PEOPLE STORMING THE CAPITOL!!" while I was concurrently doom-scrolling twitter on my nightmare rectangle and watching live coverage on TV.
And if you want to debate the basic merits of something in the future, at least have the decency to read the material.
In fact, go and read the article. I spent over six months finding all the associated threads that showed how the conspiracy formed that night, November 4th, using court documents, books, news articles and some primary sources.
Mike, well he makes stuff up.
Is this your way of telling me you didn't read the article, because you didn't actually read the article.
According to my stats no one has clicked on the link to read what should take you about fifteen minutes to have read, so no Pugs, your arguments are irrelevant without having done the basic research.
This is literally what you wrote: "My work was digging through the second core conspiracy of the Q Op, Pizzagate, which was developed beginning with Sean Hannity and Trump on stage at CPAC 2015, and culminated with an acquired missing person report via AMI’s Catch and Kill scheme featuring a credible identity for “Maria” one of two Trump-Epstein alleged victims, whose last known location was Nash’s Pizza and Grocery at Waterbury, CT, March 20, 1993."
That isn't Pizzagate. Yeah, there's the theory out there that Epstein and Trump assaulted a teenage girl together. Hell, I agree that's it's pretty credible. But that isn't Pizzagate.
Also, feel free to point out what you think Mike has made up about anything.
I realized you may have not been aware that there is a large link, titled Weaponizing Social Media, you must click on to read the article detailing the things you wish to argue. Hope this helps so we can discuss the topic of the origin and purpose of the Pizzagate conspiracy, which Mike knows exceedingly little of himself.
This is like arguing with a toddler to eat her veggies.
You can't argue the contents of an article that you haven't bothered to read Pugs. If I gave you a quiz on it, you'd likely fail because you are too interested in the reaction to a conspiracy, and not how or why the conspiracy formed. If you read the article we can discuss it like adults.
Mike has no interest in the origins or purpose of Q because he isn't a legitimate researcher, rather a grifter that would focus only on the fringe instead of the facts.
Not a "her." No doubt you've seen my Twitter bio multiple times since I know you've creep-stalked my account for screenshots. They/Them. Hell, I even mentioned being a non-binary queer person in a comment a few weeks ago. Can't pretend you didn't know, dude.
When you post something to someone else or someone else posts in response to your thread, then I see what you say. I have been to your actual profile two or three times in the past six months.
If you interacted much less with the highly noxious accounts I do keep tabs on, you wouldn't ever appear on my radar. That is of course your choice as it is mine to cover what they are up to.
Ew 6 months? I didn't even know who you were till March dude. Also, if you think you have the authority to tell a middle-aged adult whom they should/shouldn't interact with online, I've got a bridge to sell you. You built a conspiracy theory around random people, that's on you buddy. Nothing you write about is in the service of "saving democracy." All you amount to is a Jim Stewartson acolyte. From where I'm standing, it's not a good look. If you really actually care about saving democracy as you say, log off and DO something. Real lives are at risk. As I've said before, November isn't looking great. 2024 is looking even worse. Be part of the solution for a change. I'll over look the fact that you're a conservative. My dad is still fairly conservative, but over the years he's stopped voting for republicans. Go out and build community with your neighbors. Plans for bad times, while hoping for the best. If I remember right, you're in TX right? Do you have community support if the power goes out, or you run out of water, etc? Those are things you really should be focusing on, rather than whatever all this is. Help change the dialogue with other gun owners to turn towards safety and regulation. There are things you can do in your own community to help. This blog ain't it.
What's pathetic is the pack defending Rothschild's charade.
There's always a need to cement his position.