Blog Story Rants
A Tree Askant the River Grew


WANTED:  Literary Agent
My name is William, but not Shakespeare

Advanced Content

  The design of this website allows for
a 'snap-shotting' feature.  This feature
is not currently implemented.  The discussion
of complex web design really isn't a simple topic.
There is no one way to do things.  It is foolish
the way that folks look for designers for sites.
They show their perdiliction for 'thrift' which
really makes them seem just a little cupidious.
So sad for them.  I'm not a joke.  This site isn't
a joke.  My poems, well some of them are
jokes.

  Ya, the literary joke or farce is often like that
horrible song from a musical trickster.  That is
the song, say, from an Eminem album, where he
dubes in . . . sounds from . . . what might
be considered the sound track to a porn film.
It's rediculous.  You listen to it once.  You get
over it.  It is indicative to your perdilictions
as to iff you listen to this over and over.
It is like South Park.  With South Park you 
say 'Did they really take this there?'  And
you get horrified.  Matt and Trey want you to
be horrified.  They say at the beginning of
each episode (in a disclaimer) that it isn't just
that children shouldn't watch, but that probably
no body should watch.  And when Matt and Trey
do their little . . . sick sideshows (like
the critter Christmas episode) they will usually
have one of their main characters express
the outrage, or acid-headed feeling that one
gets by watching such . . . drivel.
  I sure hope that Matt and Trey aren't being
targetted now that they have made jokes about the
prohibition of images of [peace be upon him].  I wonder
how it could be that anyone would say that
any image alledged to be of [peace be upon him] could
really be an image of [peace be upon him] because
there are no real images of the prophet.  None.
There were none produced.  If they had been produced
they have since been destroyed.  Or anyone
from Europe (who didn't, perhaps, know or care
about the prohibition) who made an image alledged to
be of [peace be upon him] couldn't have known
what the prophet looked like anyway.
  It is a horrible thing for a snarky jokester type
like a Matt or a Trey, who just don't get the
devotion and the deep and ancient feelings that they
stir . . . and to think that they are . . . poking
the bear . . . and then to have some snot nose
convert say that, well, now they are being 
targetted.
  What is True, what is always True, the truth,
that is known or unknown, will remain true.  And
it will still be true when you need it to be true.
It will stay true if you know it is true or if you
forget it was true or if you never learned it was
true.  And those things that are false remain 
false.  and even if you don't know that they are false,
they will still be false.  And even if you forget they
are false, or you really think they are true, but they
are not, they remain false.  Truths of life are like
that, true now and forever.
  But then there is the truth that lives within the
context of some system of understood belief.  It might
be the discussion of some subjective topic of current
culture, fashion, religion, customs.  That kind of truth
is not life or death truth.  It  ought not to be.
Strictures on image prohibition ought just be 
enforced . . . what ever that means . . . when it
matters.  So we have some types of images that we are
not allowed to have or to produce.  Do you have to
ask what they are?  And the consequences, though it seems
foolish to some, and dire to others, are very very serious.

I think that when one depicts the prophet (peace be upon him) one
knows what one is doing.  There ought to be a level of
forgiveness for this.  Matt and Trey are dumb idiots in
that they don't see the harm in bringing anyone to the
edge of polite decorum . . . to poke the bear.  

In one sense one wonders about faith of those who 
are so bent on making sure that they control various
topics or images.  I recently put a rather snarky acessement
of the propaganda article in the comments discussion section
of that article.  I dared not to turn back my statement (to
the article itself) about how the discussion of propaganda was
rife with it.  Someone put a very nasty heading in
the part of the discussion that I put my comment, andd, in a
sense, proved my point.  But it is scarey.  People are hell-bent
on controling the discussion, the materials, what is considered
the authority on certain subjects.  I have invented
a new word:
   wikijacking
  which basically means the hijacking of a wiki for the
purposes of some agenda driven propaganda.

  The crowd that will do this kind of thing, try to 
make an article say some mean 'truth' about some group, try
to always put some group (it doesn't matter what group) in 
a good light . . . that crowd can seem scary.  I understand
the motivation to try and get those who put up hate-blogs to
not do it.  I understand the concern about not spreading
lies and hate.  But, because I know this, and I know that
it is considered laudible, I would like to take the discourse
to a new level.  Hate-blogging can not be avoided as
far as I can tell.  Those kinds of people are the canary in
the coalmine of free speach.  Not only that it serves the
purposes of education and illumination of the human intellect
to try and challange these juvenile souls to grow up.  All
that energy to type out something that you know is not
true just to hurt a group of people because someone of that
group (you imagine) did you wrong.  And so you post
mean things about some far away country.  And you draw mean
symbols on the walls of a business.  Well, guess what, that
kind of thing is now considered criminal.  And the level
of the criminality can often be exajerated.  Or, how about
the personallity type that will do the vandalism,, mean things
about their own group and . . . then look for
pity . . . when those mean things are discovered.  It is like
the night-watchman who lights a fire so he can discover it,
put it out and thus be a hero.  
  There is a real need for vigilence.  But every discussion
of some topics is meticulously trolled (on the Internet and
elesewhere) by very well funded folks who are obviously out
for causes -- agenda's causes.  And some of this gets to
the level of 'war in cyberspace'.  You just don't know
what people are capible of, if they don't understand you . . .
your poems, your rants about how examples of propaganda, provided
in a blog-site, are, in fact, often them selves propaganda.
Isn't that a basic concept?

Anyway, basic concepts are often overlooked.  People think that
they can buy their way out of anything.  They don't invent it,
they just usurp it (with leverage arbitrage) at it's point of
becoming economically viable.  They reap what they do not sow.
Such is the way of humanity.  And they also, in another sense,
reap what they sow.  They are still under that law, too, even
though they might think they have it all over other folks in
terms of finance and management.  

  I've danced around a bunch of points here.  I've got things
to say.  I just have to find out who might want to hear them.
It is easier to make a fiction that is an allegory than to
try and point out tautollogies that are arrived at through
careful consideration of premises, observable phenomemea,
and the rules of truth-functional logic.  Also, the fable 
teller sometimes is overlooked.  We live in a time when
censorship of ideas goes so far as to, when one is 
pointing out obvious things, one is attacked in a bullying way
by unknown cyber-maniacs who either have too much funding
or too much time on their hands.  It is a most unhealthy
environment.

  I'm not ready to knock the dust of the wiki-blogs off
of my feet just yet.  I think that most of the folks
who add to those articles really aren't paid hitmen for
the agenda'd causes.  It is easy to find out what these
causes are.  You only need to have a moderate understanding
of modern history, the major players and poltical movements,
and then you can quickly see . . . the tainted things that
are put forward as 'truth' in the wikiblog.  But, seriously, folks,
some of those wiki places are the meanest places on
the internet.  And some of those who claim 'just the facts',
what they do is 'just their facts.'  And they use
every polemic that they know, every way to denounce you
for daring to try and help them with the wiki.  They don't 
want you there.  They want the site for them and for
their cause.  They will bully you and try and chase you
away.  And they do it in full view of moderators and
with source control turned on for you and often, as I
seem to have discovered, turned off for them.  So the
bully gets to be anonymous and you don't if you dare to
challange them.  

Anyway, the toxic place is often the place where there 
are other things of interest, important things.  But for
the most part the wiki place about politics, religion,
current affairs, and ecconomics (social science) are
all zone of potential toxic propaganda for wikijakcers
and the people who fund them.

Don't imagine that I think that this is just one group.
In reality it is no group at all.  It is the sophmoric 
of a group who think that they have to make the lie
their lie that are the problem.  People with a more
mature, age of reason, point of view . . . of any group,
they want ballance. The adult rejects lies.  The sages
of all groups meet in eccumenical union and lament
the wiki-lies of those who think in terms
of grand social causes, the us-verse-them juvinelia that,
sadly, many never grow past.

  Let us hope that these juvenile minds (some of
them in old bodies) grow past their need for conflict
with those who are of the other groups.  We are all 
humans and all of these same group, in one sense.  And
yet, as well, we are solitary creatures each with
a single mind and doomed to misunderstand the
motivations of others.  Pray that those who misunderstand
do not take direction for stale allegories of
centuries past.  Let us hope that they put into
context the lame attempts of freshmantic minds at humor.

When you have gold and you drop it in a toilet it
is still gold.  If you fish it out, you sterilize it.
It is still good.  Mystic truths are like that.
The gold of truth is always truth no matter
what custume one puts on it.  Even if you paint
the pope with a frown and a scowl,  He isn't 
really like that.
  


- William

keep dancing, dance.  a fool for love



April 24, 2010