By Ted Belman
From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.
Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.
Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.
The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.
Everyone will be happier.
@ bernard ross:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Wy453r9m4
dweller Said:
the definition of the word is a smear on HB which is why you evade stating to what “certain kind of woman” you are referring. Duh, its transparent like the emperors clothes. You are the only one who believes it is not transparent.
@ bernard ross:
Liar Liar pants on fire comes to mind.
dweller Said:
let me refresh your memory
dweller Said:
strange you would forget something you have been doing since the 70’s….. are you marketing again?
so, just what do you mean by that “certain type of girl” …still evading the question?
dweller Said:
let me refresh your memory
dweller Said:
strange you would forget something you have been doing since the 70’s….. are you marketing again?
so, just what does that “certain type of girl” mean…still evading the question?
dweller Said:
Show us how you derived that from her posts if you can?
dweller Said:
Me!!! Never got one thing right!!!!
dweller Said:
It doesn’t matter if you used it 3-4-5 times you are nit picking which is your way of obfuscation and changing the discussion away from the point raised against you.
You keep track even if it isn’t exact but I have a feeling with you it is exact because I believe you do count such things. OCD is a very degenerative mental disorder and you got it no doubt about it. You got a lot of other symptoms that could relate to other mad hatter designations but at core OCD seems to fit you like OJ’s Glove. Schizoid is a good fit as well. You are a shrinks delight, so many abnormalities to diagnose in a single turd.
@ bernard ross:
Bottom line remains the bottom line:
You’ve NEVER been able to show a single, solitary instance of my being wrong about someone’s emotional and psychological makeup (including your own, B.ROSS). And it’s driving you nuts.
@ bernard ross:
Smearing and name-calling are not synonymous.
I give somebody a name or epithet when it’s appropriate.
That is NOT smearing.
Smearing is about conflation for the purpose of defaming somebody.
But then, as I already noted, you ARE an ignorant putz.
No. I said I may have called her “Honeybee” as many as 3 times.
But then, I had just finished noting that Capt Huff’n’puff doesn’t read for comprehension
— so it’s no shock that he would get this wrong too.
@ bernard ross:
Yet that — quite evidently — hasn’t kept you from practicing the ‘technique’ since 4th grade.
Calling a spade, a spade.
yamit82 Said:
hilarious, still as funny after all these years
@ dweller:
another long story which avoided the question of what “certain type of girl”?
dweller Said:
Haven’t a clue…..You only think you do!!!!!!!!
Still waiting for your Philistine claim sources??? Hmmmm
HWSNBN
Totally compulsively fixated, (IT) counts how many times (IT) called her HB? Twinkie and what else does (IT) claim to have invented?
Actually I think it was phoenix who first called her HB!!!!!!
bernard ross Said:
He can take his pick!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVHCWvlVfiw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVHCWvlVfiw
@ honeybee:
Well, Twinkie, apparently you must.
Her posts told me, as they would’ve told ANYBODY who was paying attention. But then, I read for comprehension — and not everybody does.
What tripe. It was I who called her Twinkie.
YoursTruly was also the first poster here to ever call her HB instead of “Honeybee” (which I may have used 3 times, if that, in the past several years).
Well, I certainly DO know the party who MADE that sage & shrewd remark.
So it’s clear that the substance of it is true.
Repeat: snitching’s not my style.
HB is the snitch around here.
mar55 Said:
I wonder which “twinkie” he sees in the mirror?
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
gosh, I haven’t seen that pathetic technique of calling your accuser back what you are accused of since 4th grade. Running out of fairy tales?
yamit82 Said:
He ALWAYS chooses the lie, the avoidance, the deception,….”marketing” just like Paul, his hero.
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
Knickers in a twist?
dweller Said:
LOL
@ bernard ross:
He has two choices to tell the truth showing him to be a vile misogynist and a slanderer or to give an explanation he knows is a lie. For a compulsive sick Bizarro moralist like him the choices are daunting. Either way he faces certain decent into Hades without a paddle…..
dweller Said:
the follower of Paul engages in deception but pretends he is not lying

are you afraid to be caught lying again? What is that “certain type of woman” that you call HB when you call her Twinkie. Cat got your tongue?
dweller Said:
the psychobabble which he lies to deny.
dweller Said:
more of the same lying smearing, psychobabbling garbage covering another mountain of garbage. I guess you keep hoping that your garbage will obfuscate the truth
i dont know why you keep psychobabbling with such a poor record of achivement.
You calling HB a Twinkie is a misogynist smear and slur indicating how you view women. You still avoid stating what is that “certain type of woman” which you call her. Running away from the truth, covering up your lies with garbage, no one is fooled by your transparent behavior.
dweller Said:
Now how do you know that? Your jesus fantasy guy whisper it in your tiny ears?
More projection bullshit from an asshole with a degree in AH BS??????
You are the one who doesn’t know HB enough to call her anything.
You know shit!!!!! Snitch!!!!!
dweller Said:
Which is a kind, intelligent, talented, well spoken. well endowed and physically beautiful woman, if I must say so myself.
@ mar55:
You don’t know her.
And she doesn’t know you.
@ bernard ross:
I’ve already shown, in excruciating detail, that you don’t have the remotest clue as to the meaning of “Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder” — so the notion that an ignoramus on the subject like yourself, of all persons, would even know whether I (or anybody else) was OCD is laughable. You are a psychobabbling buffoon’s buffoon.
No lie. YOU are a liar; you are a psychobabbler.
That’s is itself another lie. YOU are a smear freak. And YOU are a misogynist.
HB‘s kind of woman, obviously, or I wouldn’t have used it to address her.
Hogwash. It has nothing to do with any fear of ‘divulging’ anything; you are an ignorant putz.
Never said there was any ‘agreement’ between us. You’re barking up the wrong tree, slime bucket.
Standard bullshit from a bullshitter’s bullshitter.
@ honeybee:
@ mar55:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTczqVz9qSo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkjZEbV2NpI
@ honeybee:
I do not see anyone right now who can get the Republican nomination. Either Huckabee or Perry are conservatives and one way or another will pick some support. The rest are all part of the instituton. They are trying to push Romney or Bush (enough bushes already) Romney did not know how to debate the idiot of Obama when he had plenty of ammunition to win that debate. Obama’s demagogic speech and lies he let them pass and get away with it. If anyone is going to capture the Republican nomination I think it might be a dark horse that nobody expects. We like conservative candidates but
with the liberal part of the Party I see it unlikely either of these will capture the nomination. I wish…
@ honeybee:
Thank you for your words. Believe me I know how to defend myself. In this case coming from where it comes it is not needed. When you read his endless postings it is inconceivable that he would dedicate so much time to writing horse manure. He must be on acid or perhaps the effect of the acid from the sixties or seventies has scramble his brains.
Pick your battles. Spend your time in only those which are
worthy. When you pick a battle with someone who makes his own
reality, it is a waste of time because you cannot convince
someone with a scrambled brain. His calling you TWINKI only reflects on him, not on you. Anyone who knows that you, knows you are far from being one. However, when he looks at himself in the
mirror he sees a TWINKI while the rest of the world sees him as something reflecting more like a talking cow’s patty.
Do not even think about it. Concentrate in your paintings.
I would love to see one or two or more. Is there anyway I could see them?
I’m sure they are beautiful because you show brain in your clever responses and sensitivity. With these two talents and a good eye I’m sure your paintings show more than someone who knows how to apply the paint.
Bear Klein Said:
@ Bear Klein:
Forecast ???? Right now the USA is in such turmoil who can guess. I ,personally, like either Huckabee of ARK or Perry of TX. Both are strong supporters of Israel and” can do men” with some vision. Hillary, I hope to goodness the American people are wearing of both the Clintons and the Bushes.
I don’t know that much about Israel politics. I should like to see someone who has the spine to be independent of both Europe and the USA. I often think the Israelis pander to much to the American Left coasts and ignore the conservative pro-Israel mid-Americans. Many non-Jewish American like the Israeli ” spit in your eye” attitude. Reminds of USA past.
So few leaders [ maybe Putin] are “stand up” these days. Collapse at ever challenge.
@ honeybee: So I want to hear your US Presidential forecast and Israeli PM forecast?
thank you Ted, I have found chit-chat.
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
Mr OCD talks about “compulsion”
2 long posts populated by mountains of obfuscating psychobabble lying to deny that you employ (wait for it)…..psychobabble.
Still lying that your misogynist smear of HB was not a smear
dweller Said:
What certain kind of woman is that, pray tell?
You use the word twinkie but are afraid to divulge your definition of the word you use. divulging the definition you employ does not disclose any agreement between you and HB, but it does say something about you, which you kike to deny, like the denial that you lie.
@ bernard ross:
I’ve never been called a ‘misogynist’ OR a ‘woman-hater’ or anything else even remotely resembling same — by anybody but you and your supporters here. But I’ve no doubt whatsoever that both you AND Capt Huff’n’puff have EACH been called all that and more — and multiple times for each of you by women.
I’ve seen this little gambit before. I think you creeps are simply trying to palm-off what’s been delivered to YOU in the past — onto me. You may be selling, but I’m not buying. I reject your names, I reject your claims.
You’ve taken to repeating yourself in the same post. (Have you been tested lately for dementia?) It is no smear — I am not the smear creep around here; you are.
I haven’t ‘run away’ from ANYTHING. You simply cannot — and SHALL not — pressure me into doing what conscience will not permit me to do. The name I gave HB is between her and myself. I repeat what I said earlier: she knows the reason. If she wants to share it with you, fine. (And if not, ALSO fine.) But that’s the ONLY way you’re going to get it.
If you don’t like it, shove it.
Haven’t ‘admitted’ ANYTHING. There was nothing to ‘admit.’
What I said was that the name was not infrequently used by LOTS of persons as long go as the mid-to-late 70’s to describe a “certain kind of woman.” I don’t recall saying that I personally used it that way — but it wouldn’t bother me to do so — then OR now. I use language in accordance with what I find suitable & appropriate. If they — or PresentCompany — can’t handle it, TFB.
You should hear what kind of language I use to describe a “certain kind of MAN”!
(Come to think of it, you HAVE heard the language I use to describe a certain kind of man. . . .)
@ bernard ross:
If that’s your idea of ‘proof,’ you’re stupider than I thought you were. (And that’s sayin’ somethin’.)
All that is ‘proven’ by my reticence in the matter is that conniving putzes like PresentCompany cannot pressure me into doing what principle prohibits me from doing. HB knows why I gave her the name. If she wants to share the reasons with you, that’s up to her. If you truly wish to pursue the matter, I suggest you email her and discuss it that way.
Oh please. You wouldn’t recognize the truth if it BIT you.
I don’t think you’re having much fun; you try too hard. That’s a dead giveaway. Genuine fun is NEVER strenuous. It isn’t about striving. “Big Bad Wolf” is right on the money. You are indeed threatened — but not by me; that was never my intent — threatened by what I symbolize to you. And for that there is NO help — as this is entirely of your own doing.
The other thing that shows most prominently in what you said is your maliciousness in that, notwithstanding your failure to do so, you SEEK to find enjoyment at somebody else’s expense.
Nonsense. My words in your blockquote of me don’t even use the word except to deny the validity of your use of it; hence the quote marks. And in point of fact, virtually the only times I ever INITIATE use of the word online are to refer to “we” as in all persons, as when one characterizes something about human nature generally.
I repeat: There is no ‘we’ here — only a few bedraggled & insecure strugglers clinging to each other for confirmation of their authenticity as Jews.
Of course for Man there never is. That’s part of what it means to BE a man.
No, we both know that you are COMPELLED to “point it out” — because it’s always abundantly clear, each time, that it didn’t ‘stick’ the PREVIOUS time… That’s not enjoyment; that’s compulsion.
It’s ‘enjoyable’ only in the sense that scratching a bad case of Athlete’s Foot is ‘enjoyable.’
BTW, the expression, at pains, has NOTHING to do with pain. To say that somebody is “at pains” or “at great pains” to do something means that he puts enormous effort into doing it; tries very hard to do it.
As applied here: You try very HARD to convince yourself (and whoever else may still want to read your cranky rantings) that you’ve established certainty in regard to my ‘imaginary’ (or otherwise invalid} remarks. But the harder you try, the more apparent it is that you have NO such certainty whatsoever. Lotsa wishful thinking, I’ll warrant — but ‘certainty’: no.
It is YOU who are hiding behind psychobabble. And it’s always BEEN you who did that around here.
@ bernard ross:
Untrue. They did NOT arise from my mind. I did not ‘imagine’ you to be a vindictive, malicious crank eaten up with envy and bitterness.
— Your posts SHOWED it to me with considerable clarity long ago, and I’ve told you ever since.
No; if you had common sense, you could differentiate between what’s there to be seen and what your vanity needs for its own support. But it’s not especially abstruse. Here, to remind you, is the particular exchange which incorporated the observation in question:
Can you honestly NOT see the sense — or at least, the plausibility — of that???
It doesn’t follow that no regular poster here is ‘capable’ of the common sense conclusion — only that they haven’t expressed agreement. THEY HAVEN’T EXPRESSED DISAGREEMENT EITHER. There could be many reasons for not expressing agreement. There are a few that come readily to mind, but there could well be several others. For example:
They could be capable of seeing the sense of the above observation, but for reasons of personal self-image, be
A. UNWILLING to acknowledge it to themselves;
Or they could be capable of seeing it and acknowledging it to themselves — but, for reasons relating to their not wishing to risk losing the regard & support from other regular posters here, be
B. unwilling to acknowledge it here ONLINE;
Or they may find these exercises a distraction at this time in their lives, and therefore
C. choose not to read these particular exchanges at all, so they’re in no position to make a judgment, one way or the other, on the reasonableness or validity of the remarks in question.
As it is there are, at most, only 4 or 5 of us that visit the chit chat page with any regularity.
Believe what you wanna believe. You will anyway. You always do.
@ bernard ross:
Nope; common sense based on simple observation. Mar has SHOWN herself to be a prime example of what it is that she purports to hate. Q.E.D.
Fits like a glove, and it’s no smear. And you’ve got some gall to be making that bullshit claim
— you who, around here, are the KING of smears.
Get used to it, Slimey.
Most assuredly sanctimonious.
More than you bargained for, is it? I chose the right word. Sanctimonious IS as sanctimonious DOES. You can’t presume to keep up the balancing act you’ve staked out for yourself, Twink, and not wind up tripping over your own shoelaces from time to time.
At some point, you’ll have to declare yourself, and face whatever comes in the wake of it.
“Everyone”? — No, only the usual suspects: Huff’n’puff’s knitting circle, posse & mutual support group.
No, it surely could not — not logically it couldn’t. (You ARE into logic, right?)
I don’t promote emotional indebtedness by offering support — and when it’s offered TO me, I don’t accept it except in the most perfunctory way, as a courtesy or formality (like saying gezundheit! when somebody sneezes). Makes me free to say what I actually think, and to NOT have to say what I don’t believe.
“Neither a borrower nor a lender be…”
dweller Said:
a misogynist smear which is proven by the fact that you continue to avoid giving YOUR definition of the word that you call HB. you always run away from the truth.
dweller Said:
no big bad wolf, just a football of a fool that we kick around for fun. your own words admit to a “we” here, of course there is no “we” for you.
dweller Said:
no pain at all, I enjoy pointing it out after every long winded mountain of garbage you create to cover it up.
dweller Said:
LOL, trying to hide once more behind the skirts of your psychobabble?
Bernard ross Said:
a misogynist smear which is transparent as a result of your running away from giving your definition of the smear you call HB. Are you afraid to expose the truth? Of course the truth exposes the smear, the lie that you dont smear and the lie that you dont lie. You have already admitted that you used to to describe a certain type of woman but you evade describing the type. Your evasion proves you to be a liar, as usual.
dweller Said:
dont need to: they arise only from your mind, you provide no factual basis for them, therefore they are fiction born of your mind just like a fairy tale.

dweller Said:
<block….that it was your OWN common sense — if you still had any — that would show you the soundness of my remark. LOL, in other other words if I agreed with your fiction I would have common sense
dweller Said:
apparently no one here is capable of understanding the “common sense” (LOL) of your psychobabble, certainly no one has ever expressed that agreement here . Its convenient for you that your definition of common sense needs no one else to agree with you. apparently your common sense is simply a fiction you use to rationalize the fiction of the psychobabble you create.
dweller Said:
It appears that you are the only one here who has the “common sense” to apprehend your illusions.
@ bernard ross:
It is nothing of the sort, and your claim is a puddle of bilgewater.
@ bernard ross:
I don’t have to.
To begin with, there is NO “we” here — only yourself and the other few wretched elements of the walking wounded who huddle together with each other here, for comfort from the Big Bad Wolf.
Moreover, and more significantly, if you had even a scrap of certainty that I had ‘NEVER’ been shown to ever be right in such matters (especially about yourself , in particular, Sir) — then you wouldn’t be at such great pains to keep ASSERTING your ‘certainty’ in it.
This is well-and-truly a case of one’s “protesting-too-much” standing as evidence of the protester’s falsity. ‘Certainty,’ indeed.
Again though, your persistent inverting (indeed, per-verting) of the Presumption-of-Veracity with the Burden-of-Proof when there is absolutely no manifestly just reason for doing so tells us VOLUMES more about you than about YoursTruly.
Repeat — I have NO obligation to ‘prove’ anything; I’ve merely said what I believe. You can explore what I’ve said or you can ditch the remarks at your pleasure. The world will go on either way, as far as I’m concerned.
While you have YET to come up with a solitary instance of any remark of mine being wrong about someone’s emotional and psychological makeup (including your own, B.ROSS).
Hogwash. It’s quite deniable. I’ve denied it several times, and will continue to do so. What I’ve said about YOU, e.g., is right on the money. THAT’S what’s undeniable.
As a matter of fact, even you YOURSELF have never yet denied it.
Care to trash your own record and establish a whole new ballgame?
@ bernard ross:
There’s nothing intrinsically ‘misogynistic’ about the word,”Twinkie.”
In fact (as I’ve already noted), I used to know feminists who used it regularly.
Not that I give — or gave — a rusty screw what they might think, any more than I give a rusty screw what you think.
@ bernard ross:
Your analogy is faulty, and silly. I wasn’t saying MY common sense could show YOU the soundness of what I had written. Common sense is the birthright of EVERY person — and I noted (above, in the part of my comment that you ignored in your blockquote, but which I have restored) that it was your OWN common sense — if you still had any — that would show you the soundness of my remark.
Right.
Wrong. That is not the reason for the word “common.”
I had told you the reason it’s called “common” — but that’s part of the above remark [now bolded] which you omitted from your blockquote of me. I repeat it here for you:
— Common Sense is “a capacity accessible to all persons, irrespective of education or training.”
It was called “common” because access to it was not dependent on one’s station in life; you could be a common person, a “commoner” — and still possess it.
OTOH, there is nothing about being a common person that guarantees that common sense will be active in him/her any more so than that such sensibility is assured of being active in the educated or well-to-do.
Common sense conclusions are, thus, NOT ipso facto “understood by most.”
— Rather, common sense conclusions are CAPABLE of being “understood by most.”
Well, absent your own common sense, you have no choice BUT to draw such ‘conclusions.’ No surprises there.
@ bernard ross:
YOU have certainly provided no evidence that they ARE ‘fairy tales’ — let alone, established that you have a clue as to what CONSTITUTES a fairy tale.
@ bernard ross:
One man’s common sense is another’s dementia, inanity etc.
Subjective projection, stupid argument, pure sophistry- circular arguments.
dweller Said:
yes, everyone is kissing everyone elses keister, surely it could not be you
dweller Said:
Is this psychobabble based on common sense too?dweller Said:
still using this smear even though you denied smearing anyone and then deny lying about lying about it?
dweller Said:
a sermon and a psychobabble, a twofer
(posted from the following forum)
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63602782/comment-page-2#comment-63356000146160
@ dweller:
so much blah blah blah over so many posts and still not a single basis, argument, reason,support for your psychobabble….same with your misogynist use of the word twinkie. You claim common sense as an argument but you could just as well claim your pet dog as an argument.
@ yamit82:
I love the expressions on their faces while listening to Dweller (sorry, I meant queeg)
@ dweller:
I have reviewed your mountain of obfuscation piled up in the last number of posts, regarding your unsupported psychobabble, and I am still left with the conclusion that you have never supported one of your psychobabble claims which leads me agian to remind you of this simple, and apparently timeless truth:
On that we can rely with certainty, and all here should remember that every time you utter your psychobabble. Interesting that this circuitous path you lead us down always ends in the same place. No matter how many times you pile up your garbage the conclusion is the same single undeniable sentence.