I put this on
Toylit, but most of you don't read all the news that's shit, in print; so I'll post it here too.
So Scott Roeder was in the news again and I thought it was a good idea to post 'What Men Want' on all the knee-jerk blogs. It cracked me up that some read it as an anti-abortion poem almost as much as it did when people read it as a pro-abortion poem. It's astonishing that these functionally illiterate zombies actually maintain websites. If I was functionally illiterate, I'd do everything in my power to hide it.
Since I am the enemy of morons, I figured I'd post the exchange w/ an example with a classic case: Kevin Evans. You can reach him at: kebmebms@gmail.com and let him know what you think. Or you could just go and remind him what a chicken he is by posting unflattering comments on his site... for him to delete. Don't forget to save your comments first! And post them here. You may use this thread to write about the insanity of dealing with freaks who can write, but can't read. For me, in that regard, the internet is a kind of hell. Or just a reminder of how many zombies walk amongst us.
The last line is just too precious. I think you'll get a chortle from it.
Oops, forgot to add the website: http://moravings.blogspot.com/2010/04/scott-roeders-sentencing-todayheres.html
It's fuckin' hilarious that the guy spent more effort writing a response than he did to actually writing his post. Why do people who suck get so defensive about it? Just play a different game, dummy.
"Ah, intellectual cowardice to match intellectual weakness.
Here's a question: how do you reconcile that word with the STANZAS that precede it?
Answer? You don't. You are sub-literate.
This response is going on Toylit now as well as Combatwords. I will never understand why the sub-literates of the world feel such a burning desire to write.
Lol!
-KW
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Kevin Evans wrote:
Mr. Wessington,
I'd have gladly posted your last note but you referred to a woman or women in general as sluts. I don't do hate language and I don't reduce whole groups of people to other, ugly ones. I don't allow hate speech on my blog. If censorship is for cowards, in your eyes, so be it. I'm happy to have anyone and everyone read my blog and reply but I don't and won't allow ugliness on it. I'm sure you have your rules. That is virtually my only one.
ke
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Khakjaan Wessington wrote:
Khakjaan Wessington has left a new comment on your post "Scott Roeder's sentencing today:here's hoping":
Thanks for reading, but your close-reading skills need some work. I put some bait in there to help identify the less sophisticated readers. Looks like you took the hook, line and sinker.
Consider that you are so dogmatically positioned, that you are unwilling to see that the poem opposes both your reading and your response to it.
Also, censorship is for cowards, who lack faith in the power of their own words to rebut an opposing posit. Keep that in mind when you consider deleting this follow-up.
Publish this comment.
Reject this comment.
Moderate comments for this blog.
Posted by Khakjaan Wessington to Mo Rage at April 6, 2010 12:35 PM
--
http://moravings.blogspot.com
http://kcphotogblog.blogspot.com
And the thread itself:
5 comments:
Khakjaan Wessington said...
What Men Want
http://toylit.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-men-want-todays-news-poem-jan-29.html
"My honest belief was that if I didn't do something they would continue to die."
-Scott Roeder
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60S4UB20100129
The ancient women, wise with feral ways,
Passed matrilineal traditions down
From ape to human—knowing men could slay,
With lust, their daughters. Deaths wore bridal gowns
Before connubial beds became their graves
So brewing remedies these mothers saved
All humankind. Resentful, men thought slaves
Were made of them. He mastered war and raved
Against his mother—burning her to ash.
Denounced as midwife: now we call her witch.
Their wives and daughters—mothers died—the clash
Of sexes won. Thus Woman, made a 'bitch,'
To breed and grieve perhaps before the next.
The men would prise the fruit, more sons, from wombs
That rarely lasted forty years. But text
Reflected changing norms. In time, this grooms
A kinder sort of man who seeks a peer—
If only theoretically. Rights,
If slowly, catch the rhetoric—so dear
To many—bringing new and awful blights.
I think I know this killer's thoughts, this guy
Who shot that Kansas doc. He felt betrayed
By fellow man: resolved to make him die
And eased his guilt with Bible quotes. Unswayed,
The jury found enough to lock him up.
A shame, because a woman now, receives
In joy or rage a life from carnal tup
That soon awaits abortionist's coarse sieves;
Because she knows she really wants what men
Desire. To lust and grow and kill and feel—
Not nothing—just flushing. She wants what men
Desire: to fuck and kill and never heal;
To harvest death for medicines and soups
Or trashed in plastic bags in cans on stoops.
http://toylit.blogspot.com
April 1, 2010 2:12 PM
PFL0W said...
I publish this last comment with some trepidation.
Actually, what I think women want--if I may be so bold as to conjecture--is to do what's right with their bodies, and for their child, man's interference be damned.
mr
April 1, 2010 7:25 PM
PFL0W said...
to think that women want "To lust and grow and kill and feel—Not nothing—just flushing. She wants what men
Desire: to fuck and kill and never heal;"
is pure bullshit.
If anyone feels, it's the woman.
This is so typically a man's assumption of what a woman wants.
Nonsense.
mr
April 1, 2010 7:27 PM
Khakjaan Wessington said...
Thanks for reading, but your close-reading skills need some work. I put some bait in there to help identify the less sophisticated readers. Looks like you took the hook, line and sinker.
Consider that you are so dogmatically positioned, that you are unwilling to see that the poem opposes both your reading and your response to it.
Also, censorship is for cowards, who lack faith in the power of their own words to rebut an opposing posit. Keep that in mind when you consider deleting this follow-up.
April 6, 2010 12:35 PM
PFL0W said...
a) I didn't censor this;
b) I censored you earlier because you spoke ugly and ill-meaning of women. Ugliness and hate speech is the only thing I will not/do not allow in repsonses.
As I wrote to you earlier: I'd have gladly posted your last note but you referred to a woman or women in general as sluts. I don't do hate language and I don't reduce whole groups of people to other, ugly ones. I don't allow hate speech on my blog. If censorship is for cowards, in your eyes, so be it. I'm happy to have anyone and everyone read my blog and reply but I don't and won't allow ugliness on it. I'm sure you have your rules. That is virtually my only one.
I'm not so dogmatic, as you say, in that I don't require that anyone else think as I do. If you have a different opinion, so be it. If it's different than mine on abortion, I'll tell you you're wrong and leave it at that.
Censorship can, in fact, be for cowards, as you say, but that's not why I censor. I only censor so ugliness isn't distributed freely, at least not here. I leave that for the Fox "News" Network and their followers.
You need to learn better English. You aren't clear, frequently, with your writing.
mr"
Subscribe in a reader
