Archive for the 'Internet Fixing' Category

I guess this thing is on

I have been sort of disappointed with the internet for sometime, but nothing surprising. It is the idea that Twitter isolates and amplifies id, and does so in ways that are anti-ploverian, which is the ideal we have here at the mothership. I have been struggling with an idea about how someone can be simultaneously correct or have an important point, yet personal motivations or interests render those correct points as points being scored in some competition or “red meat” for a watching crowd. This is akin to the criticism that some discussions can have a disingenuous side in that part of the discussion is “performance” by one or other side. And, in a toilet bowl spiral, an allegation of “performance” will inevitably be used to rhetorically undermine the performer, and act as a side step for the issue at hand. Anyhow, I didn’t really know how to write whatever I was going to write without it being assumed I was taking some side in some internecine argument. I just read something that essentially captures everything I was going to say. It is worth a read. I don’t think what are described as “Social Justice Discourse Fallacies” are actually fallacies or linked to ideas of Social Justice, I think they are rhetorical landmines that relate to how people argue and the normal human desire to establish rhetorical advantage, be accepted by a group, and feel important as member of a team, and thus are universal.

Request for reader blurriness: Should Three Bulls! Incarnate (Inblogate?) Incoherence?

Rebuilt Cop Id = Public Editor

A word from Errata Brushbins, 3B’s I-blur-topic ed.

I’m looking for “reader” input on whether and when Three Bulls! keyboard monkeys/meese/birds/fungi/ombudsganisms should insist that “sense” is overrated and ought to be dispensed with in any “content” inflicted on hapless viewers of this website.

One example mentioned recently by a small, potted plant that has never actually read this site: As noted in the recent XLVIX-part series “Under the Bench: A Gum Wad’s View of the Supreme Court”, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” the rules of curling when he used curling stones supplied by his wife which could be remotely steered from a bunker under the Heritage Foundation. The plant seemed perturbed by the plausibility of this scenario.

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for the lateness of Pitchfork Cobaggery Watch,” a phrase to which Uncanny Canadian responded in a December column by saying: “”.

As a denizen of the Three Bulls! mausoleum, Mr. [sic] Canadian clearly has the freedom to be non-responsive. My question for readers is: should actual non-silent posters do the same?

If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for Three Bulls!, there should be a post stating, more or less:

“Mitt Romney is just a theory. All hail IceWedge.” (IcePorkins getting no love per usual.)

That approach is what one reader was getting at in a recent message found in a bottle washed up on the Three Bulls! private beach. He/she/it/bird wrote:

“My question is what role battle raps play in inducing the heat death of the universe. The main problem with entropy is that it doesn’t work fast enough, especially when living organisms are around. I continually mourn the amount of order I add to the universe and rely on 3B as a synapse randomizer. If the site’s overarching goal is the dismasting of the ship of reason so that it is helpless before wind and water and soon devoured by lampreys and laser-urchins, oughtn’t its principal posts fire their cannons on all cylinders? In other words, if Matthew Yglesias stubs his toe in a forest and no one is there to hear, does he still sound like an emu? And shouldn’t the result be sampled?”

This message was typical, perhaps even archetypical, of “mail” from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to Three Bulls for variety in distortion and evasion. They worry that 3B might one day show something, that, without requiring the assumption that the phonemes mean something when strung together in one of chief languages of the planet I______ IV, could be called judgment.

Is that the prevailing view? And if so, do we care? We can point to actual sentences in the universe like, “Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?” What more could you want?

Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, 3B has employed a special invisible sidebar where we ignore them entirely. Do you like this feature, or would you rather our ignorance be incorporated into our regular posts?

Please feel free to leave a comment below or send an e-mail to with the subject line: Must Credit Three Bulls! Beware of comment moderation policy.

PS The collective noun for ombudsganisms is: an ombudsgasm of ombudsganisms. No one who has met one has lived long enough to devise a collective noun for laser-urchins.


All headers to 3bulls at gmail, 950 pixels wide, 200 tall, as announced.

For you, we provide the internets with a sort of fixing, as they needed this:

We patiently await the ironic twitpic tweet from @mattyglesias. We say the words three times. Ma…no we got too scared.

Thunder can say them.

UPDATE: bow to fish

Get On the Sanders’ Train


I’ve been listening on and off for about an hour and a half. I find it stirring. I look forward to claims of Quixoticism and grandstanding from the lowest of the low.

UPDATE- the sound of internet crickets always prevails while the schoolkids decided which way they think the event played. First, fish needs to sit down. Second:

12.10.10 — 10:57PM // RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
Through a Filibuster Darkly

Our Brian Beutler explains why those fake non-talking filibusters we’ve seen for two years are the real thing and the genuine article Bernie Sanders filibuster today wasn’t the genuine article.

–Josh Marshall

And of course what does Brian Beutler say:

They could read from the phone book, or from the bible, or rant in paranoid fashion about how some day there would be a black president, and he would try to raise taxes on rich people. Whatever.

It looked a lot like what Bernie Sanders is doing today.

Certainly he doesn’t mean that an inspired oration laying out what progressive principles are and what true patriotism means in the face of mindless greed and blind self-interest is the same as those other things he’s claiming Sanders looked like. I think if you asked Brian he might even suggest it was noble theater. What he wouldn’t admit is that the soon to be predictable stream of tsk tsk get realing we’re about to hear emanating from his increasingly oily boss calls for NUTPUNCH. The only hope there could be is Jon Stewart getting behind this, because J. Marshall and D. Kurtz at least take him seriously.

Don’t try me, boys.

I blame fish

There have been multiple complaints regarding this blog and the propensity for extensive arguments. The Ombuds collective acknowledges that arguments must be avoided at all costs as they have a tendency to make David Broder uncomfortable. It has also been noted that these arguments are taking place without the proper safety training as required by Article E, Section M, Subheading U. So before we continue, it is required that you all view this argument training video:

Fish stole the video. Let us proceed then. A rigorous statistical analysis of the argument phenomenon that is occurring in the greater 3Bulls(!) blogosphere revealed only one  common causative modality with a P Value reaching significance (p=0.0): fish. Yes, it appears fish is a major root cause of argumentation. I am afraid that an intervention is required.

There is a problem however. How does one actually intervene with a chronic arguer? The first step is to recognize the signs of the arguing addict to be sure the diagnosis is correct:

1) Does the individual head into the bathroom carrying a copy of Debaters Weekly and mumbling something about becoming a “Master”?

2) Do you have to put parental controls on the TV to block The McLaughlin Group?

3) Must you never say the words “designated hitter” out loud in his or her presence?

4) Have you heard enough about salt already?

Given criteria such as those above, it is clear to the Ombuds that fish has a serious problem and runs the risk of making David Broder cry if he does not get the help that he needs.

This Ombud has a few recommended actions:

1) pick up apparatus; use apparatus, play video of Kennedy/Nixon debate while playing Rush at full volume.

2) mark fish’s IP as spam and then initiate an argument between Mandos and Plover on the post-modern theory as applied to the inherent sexism of Linux use in the movie Avatar.

3) Read Matt Yglesias’ justification for the Iraq War out loud and apply strong electroshock every time he audibly snorts.

4) Cancel his subscriptions to Z Magazine and the Utne Reader. Force him to subscribe to and read TNR, Slate, and The Nation. Refuse to discuss or consider any points of view other than David Corn’s.

5) Any time he brings up Chomsky, say that “Jonah Goldberg really has a more interesting take on this topic”.

6) Agree with everything he says. (this may be an unworkable solution)

I am sure with aggressive treatment, we can get fish to allow someone else to speak once in a while. If he continues on his current path, he is in danger of using up all the letters on the internets. Let’s get him re-socialized and ready to become a productive member of society again. Won’t you help fish instead of cursing him?


fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 4

The sheepish look on a particular shorebird at, with this post, disturbing the tranquillity of those who thought this particular brouhaha had subsided a month ago caused one of our editors to suggest filing it under “fish vs ovine”, but said editor was, to easily imaginable effect, threatened with being locked in the room with the ombudscrew.

Perhaps this post will function as a kind of outreach to the zombie community.

Either that or when the cart heralded by “Bring out your dead!” arrives, it will simply be bundled on to it, protestations that it is, in point of fact, not well characterized as “dead” notwithstanding — though whether that is because those protestations are ignored, or are, as it turns out, never made, is probably not within my purview.

Prior installments: part 1, part 2, Part 3.

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 4’

fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 3

I’m sure these Acme Jet-propelled Skates will work this time.

Prior installments: part 1, part 2.

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 3’

fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 2

When I put up the previous post in this mishegas, I left a comment at fish’s saying:

I’m afraid I’ve ended up engaging in disproportionate response again.

It has been suggested to me that this should be my tag line. Sadly, I can find no argument against that.

Below the fold, find “epic ploveriness” or “an amazing cure for insomnia” or “a tragic misuse of space where there should be moose jokes and Goobie pics” or “an evil ploy by sink lettuce” or whatever it is the kids are calling it these days (now with annoying Wittgensteinian numbering system!).

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 2’

fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative

A week ago, fish posted an excerpt from an SEK LGM post lambasting the film Avatar for having a racist narrative logic, along with a critique of SEK’s argument. The burden of fish’s argument, being of a sort to cause strange colors in shorebirds, led to an exchange of comments (which starts here) and eventually to the slab o’ text making up the main part of this post.

[In 3D where available]

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative’

Junk food

There has been a recent plea shouted into the dark vacuum of the internet:

Also, what can the ombudscommittee do about this travesty appearing in my inbox

Junk Foods That Could Save Your Life
August 7, 2009

From Cheez Whiz to blue M&M’s, here are five dietary don’ts with surprising health virtues. More…

Fortunately for Kathleen, wagons of ombud (this is not what the MoH thinks it is) can hear just fine in a vacuum.

Kathleen is correct, immediate action is needed. I, Ombudwagon, will take this important responsibility onto myself. Much like the several months I spent deeply researching issues regarding esoteric pornography other stuff, I will now throw myself into dealing with the travesty that has assaulted Kathleen from this e-missive. I believe the action items for dealing with the aforementioned problem are:

1) Transfer the entire abomination to one Pinko Punko using a preferred method of e-transfer.

2) Someone temporarily un-fire one Pinko Punko until such time as he can post the e-transferred e-missive in its e-ntirety into Delish or Disgust. Re-termination (or even re-animation if the timing is good) can be immediately enacted upon completion of his duties.

3) Tapping into the power of the internets, we can then  “crowdsource” the validity of the purported health claims for the various “junk foods.” Volunteers will extreme test each foodstuff for its potential health benefits and report back results to the central junk food bureau of standards and measures.

N.B.  Experimentation is encouraged in maximizing potential benefits through food synergies. E.g. Would Cheez Whiz Blue M&M pie confer additive or synergistic benefits to the eater?

4) Once the data has been carefully vetted and all important conclusions have been made, we will then proceed to ignore the report because who actually reads D or D anyway? Well at least it isn’t Celebrity Dream Cameo…