BS: Hate speech on Mudcat

Subject: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:40 PM

See the following examples of hate speech against conservatives/religious people from Mudcat members/frequenters in just a span of 5 days from 4 threads. If you think any of them aren't hate speech, try replacing the word "conservative/right-winger/Christian/shaman/etc" with any race or targeted group and see how great they look.


Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Stu - PM
Date: 25 Jan 16 - 12:56 PM

Appalling. Under the tories the nation is becoming a nastier, meaner and more depressing place to live.
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 04:16 AM

"Tenants rights are confined to the inside of property in regard to decoration."
The first right of anybody is to defend themselves and their families from harm - tenants or not
These doors were equivalent to hanging signs up and saying "To any right wing thus who happens to be in the vicinity - I am an asylum seeker - please feel free to vandalise my home".
These are the figures of the homes with red doors again
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 05:22 AM
[....]
You have placed yourself more to the right than the most right wing of the British national press and you maintain that position
Your behaviour here is unbelievable
Stomach-heaving, to say the least
Jim Carroll

[edit: May I add this remark was for merely proposing the idea that racism isn't always the cause of certain things? Not to mention's Jim's offensive and hateful suppositions and conjectures too numerous to include on here, including rude name calling saying he wasn't even human merely for disagreeing with him]
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 08:03 PM

Up to this point in the thread, "Steve" has contributed a one-word post expressing support for Jim. I seriously don't need a twit like you, who seldom contributes a anything sensible to any thread on any subject at all, calling me a usual suspect for posting a single one-word post. Anyway, I'll tell you what I think. I think we are being softened up to hate immigrants by a nasty, racist Tory government which never criticises Israeli atrocities, which cosies up to the despicable Saudi regime and which allows fat cats to get away without paying tax. [...]
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 08:11 AM

"They are entitled to free food and accommodation while other people are not."
Why not come out with it Keith and suggest they are electronically tagged - then you wouldn't have to beat about the bush.
The armbands have nothing to do with benefits - they are to identify the wearers as asylum seekers whenever they appear in public - nothing else has been suggested by anyone other than you (one-man campaign again) [edit: they actually are given food, and shelter believe it or not, and some still don't appreciate it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ycq4jrssRI]
They have been judged to be discriminatory and have been withdrawn - you continue to defend them - nothing new there either.
Tell me again that you are not a right-wing extremist - please
Jim Carroll [edit: right wing 'extremist'???? Merely for saying the facts! the fact's you're denying? Who looks like the extremist to you? the one saying facts or the one denying reality?]
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:35 PM

"Don't try to introduce them to common sense Keith....I've been trying for a week but I fear they are incompatible :0("
And then there were two - right wing nutters
Jim Carroll
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:45 AM

"The contractor "defended the used of the wristbands but said it was looking at alternative ways of managing "the fair provision of support" ""
Wouldn't they just
The rest of Britain seems to have condemned it, asylum seekers have been harassed because of it, it has been compared widely with forcing Jews to wear yellow stars and it has been abandoned as being both degrading and dangerous - and all you people can come up with is "the contractors say it's ok"
It is a way of tagging people and it has been proven to have put people at risk yet our star super-rights continue to defend the use of compulsory markers to identify foreigners - why am I not surprised.
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin - PM
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 10:17 AM

[....]
there is an impending clash between women and the state in places like Nicaragua where an anti-abortionist cult controls the government. Tens of thousands of women will know they're doomed to spend their lives cleaning up after children with half a brain if they do what their local shaman says.
....
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:20 AM

Well no-one here is attempting to demonise people of faith. As for attacking religion, well that is always justified and there isn't anywhere near enough of it. But I for one do not want to have the arrival into the world of thousands of deformed babies for a stick to beat religion with. Let's all hope it doesn't happen.
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Crisis in Flint Michigan
From: olddude - PM
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 10:14 PM

Flint has a lot of sick kids, also they have a Republican governor. I guess with a 40 percent poverty rate in Flint, they don't count and most are black. [edit: really, another original comment about how all Republicans are racist. Tell me , have you heard the one where the chicken crosses the road?]
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Crisis in Flint Michigan
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 03:18 AM

The difficulty with the question why we are not discussing this is that it seems there is nobody prepared to defend the governor's position. Perhaps, however the topic could be widened to include the Repuglitard threats to US environmental protection.
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Crisis in Flint Michigan
From: GUEST,# - PM
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:36 AM

They are not 'Repuglitards', they are Republicans. Please use the correct term for these duplicitous bastards or they won't know to whom you refer. Just like Conservatives in the UK and Conservatives in Canada.

They worship at the 'altar of mammon' and they are quite proud of that. They eat the young of the poor wherever they are, and this is just one more example. They divide humans by race and set us against each other. They steal food from others and then momentarily glut their never-ending appetites on the remains of the dead.
[...]
==============================================================================================================================================
Subject: BS: Dead twat in Oregon
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 08:57 PM

I can't find anything about the Malheur nonsense although I thought there had been a thread.

Google is telling me something about archiving, so maybe a mod hid whatever there was.

Anyway, one ammosexual is dead (hooray) and the retards are trying to say he was a hero AND surrendering (er - contradiction in terms) which looks remarkably like their thought (if that is the right word) process goes

"Yup Billy-Bob iffen one of them N-words that Ah ain't allowed to say because of that darned perlitical correctness, despite the first amendment, can pretend he was surrendering like, so didn't need to get shot, even if the only one of them that is good is a dead one, then Ah reckin we can say the same an' set our dead white dear departed brother as a martyr, murdered by the chief N-word and his troops, which is why we gotta keep all our guns 'cos with our lil rifles if they send in the army well we kin shoot all of them and set up our own constitoooshinal republic yessir".

Why do you intelligent Merkins let the brain-dead rule the roost?

[edit: if the person he was mocking was black, though...]
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Dead twat in Oregon
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 11:50 PM

Well, yes, given that the only non-twunt deaths at Waco were the initial unwary, which could readily now be avoided in Malheur, I'd think a full-bore government military assault a pretty good idea. In Waco the only dead in the later assault were all the whackos, I think it was 84 of them. Genetic improvement for the country. Death by stupidity. [edit: no, no kids were killed, not at all! I'm sure they had the option of being there.]
==================================================================================================================================================
Subject: RE: BS: Death in Oregon Confrontation With FBI
From: GUEST,# - PM
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 07:37 AM

"Why do you intelligent Merkins let the brain-dead rule the roost?"

Probably for the same reason educated people like you toss around the word 'retard' and allow your society to be destroyed by Conservatives under Cameron: lack of knowledge and a surfeit of stupidity in a large percentage in the general population. Howzat?
==================================================================================================================================================

Needless to say, I think I've made my case clear: there is a strong conservaphobia/religiophobia on this website that permeates it deeply. The few who stand by their beliefs (MGM Lion, akenaton, Pete from Seven Stars, and even occasionally Joe Offer) are strongly and harshly berated and assaulted by these people who claim to be for social progress. But in the midst of criticizing its opponents, they manage to use derogatory terms like "retard." They are a laughable bunch, and I'm embarrassed and upset to be on the same side of most of these issues as them. There is a much better way to get your point across than sweeping generalizations, suppositions, and pointless name-calling.

That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:51 PM

It has been lately thus, 'tis not a place for the faint of heart nor for anyone sensitive to bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:50 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Death in Oregon Confrontation With FBI
From: GUEST,# - PM
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 07:37 AM

"Why do you intelligent Merkins let the brain-dead rule the roost?"

Probably for the same reason educated people like you toss around the word 'retard' and allow your society to be destroyed by Conservatives under Cameron: lack of knowledge and a surfeit of stupidity in a large percentage in the general population. Howzat?"



What part of that is hate speech?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,the one who started the thread
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 12:05 AM

allow your society to be destroyed by Conservatives under Cameron: lack of knowledge and a surfeit of stupidity in a large percentage in the general population.

Ie "allow your society to be destroyed by Jews under Blumenthal: lack of knowledge and a surfeit of stupidity in a large percentage in the general population"

Although to be fair I did originally read that slightly differently

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,#
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 12:14 AM

I guess you like Conservatives and I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 01:39 AM

really, what part of any of the above is hate speech?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 01:59 AM

Those who hate, are only admitting that they are powerless to Love.
Those who resent, just can't get over that they are powerless to forgive, and offer better.!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 03:14 AM

I think of myself as a liberal, although it's clear that I don't meet the standards some here hold for liberals. And I've always thought of liberals as open-minded, reasonable, tolerant people.

That's often not the case with liberals here. They seem to be as rigid and as judgmental as the most extreme conservatives.
That's a disillusionment to me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 03:37 AM

With the demise of "Team Musket", the hate quotient has diminished.
Soon we will be able to discuss all subjects as adults.

There are only about three or four people left who like to act as the Mudcat Thought Police.......the strange thing is, that they all claim to be liberals?

When I started using "liberals", I was referring to people like those mentioned by Joe above.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 03:45 AM

So what you appear to be saying, 'GUEST', is that only the Right has the right to hate but "liberals" don't? As a fully paid up "liberal" I demand the right to hate bullying, injustice, discrimination against powerless minorities, cruelty, wilful stupidity, superstition and ignorance. For the record, I, personally, hate the way that the environment, upon which we all depend, is being mercilessly ripped apart around us for the purposes of short-term greed and all of the other organisms that we share the planet with are treated as irrelevant and expendable.

At the moment, the Right have all the power and little responsibility. They should not be surprised to meet determined opposition!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 04:08 AM

I 'hate' - in no particular order - dentists, estate agents, opticians, surveyors, undertakers, solicitors; and all misc local authority and social services nasty little petty despots

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 04:28 AM

Sensitive little soul our guest, isn't he/she.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 04:52 AM

I have no idea what opticians might have done to invoke GUEST's ire. And hating dentists is all very well, but you would hate it more if you needed one and there wasn't one.

Shimrod's last sentence is very pertinent. People feel powerless and unrepresented, and its not surprising when they use what might seem intemperate language, as there seems nothing more constructive that they can do about their plight.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 05:20 AM

Joe Offer: "And I've always thought of liberals as open-minded, reasonable, tolerant people.
That's often not the case with liberals here. They seem to be as rigid and as judgmental as the most extreme conservatives.
That's a disillusionment to me."

(But, to whom it may concern,):

Hence, 'so-called liberals' as opposed to liberally minded.

The last couple of lines in Phil Ochs', 'Love Me I'm a Liberal', brings home the point on how far one could take it, and never catch the flash.

...I keep saying BOTH parties, (and been ostracized for it), because BOTH parties have played on the emotions and fears, of their 'subscribers', for reasons that are often built on deceptions...and in their wake, they leave a lot of good-intentioned, sincere people, acting out their angst against each other, in the very same manner that they accuse the 'other side' of being....and though they may be sincere...they become sincerely wrong.

The trolls are only just 'burn-outs'.

...anyway....Regards,
(waving)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 05:54 AM

Co-incidentally, I've just been reading a review of a book called Liberalism: The Life of an Idea. It's a word which seems to mean diammetrically opposite things to different people.

Few words are as calculated to cause political confusion between the British and the Americans than the word "liberal". In the United Kingdom, to describe someone as a liberal is to associate them either with Britain's long-lived Liberal party (1859-1988) – the party of Gladstone, Lloyd George and David Steel; or with the free market economics of FA Hayek, Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher... In the United States, to call someone a liberal is to associate them with elite opposition to the free market economics of Hayek, Friedman, and Ronald Reagan. In America, liberals are mostly socialists, certainly defenders of "Big Government". They distrust capitalism, they are bleeding-heart pacifists, and they are diehard defenders of the welfare state.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/29/liberalism-life-of-idea-edmund-fawcett-review

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 06:24 AM

I don't really see any hatred from the conservatives here...mostly they make a case for their views, even political conservatives on Mudcat....and there are only about four here who I would guess are politically conservative.

The social conservatives, of whom there are a fair number always present a cogent argument as to why they think society is changing too quickly and often in the wrong direction.

The liberals, even those who are not personally abusive don't seem to rely on argument, but more on ideology and intimidation......the "Red Door" thread being a very good example.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 06:30 AM

In case of any misunderstanding, I am politically Socialist and socially conservative

"The true path"    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:00 AM

Well let me indulge myself in a little fake psychoanalysis here, just for fun, you understand. Our cowardly anonymous Guest is feeling a little got at because he's been exposed as a charlatan and fraud in recent days. He pretends that he needs to be anonymous to protect himself from abuse, or something. The truth is that he hides behind the group anonymity of "Guest" in order to promote his own version of bile. Witness the posts in which he attempts to stigmatise Palestinians by referring to a couple of attempted stabbings, while condoning the Israeli regime's attacks on Gaza, painting Hamas as a bunch of baby-eating bastards and blaming them for Israeli rockets that blast schools and hospitals to kingdom come. Anyway, we all know what the misguided soul thinks, so enough of that and back to the psychology.

So, frustrated by his outing, he trawls, selectively of course, through recent posts of his perceived enemies to look for hate speech. In true fashion, though he finds no actual hate speech at all, he spends ages copy and pasting recent posts and calls them hate speech anyway. When I say selectively, let's just note that he includes nothing at all by that arch-revisionist, far-right stonewaller Keith, nothing at all from the aggressive, bullying, name-calling Teribus, nothing at all from confirmed homophobe and xenophobe akenaton, and, naturally enough, nothing at all from himself. However, let's note a slight change in his tone recently. Under attack, he is now having to answer his critics somewhat in order to preserve what little credibility he thinks he's clinging on to. This pathetic thread-opener reveals him to be squarely on the back foot. Bad move, Guesticles! Why, he hasn't even called me a Jew-hater for a while!

Hate speech, eh? I should coco!

Hey mods! Why not stop all this nonsense? A unique moniker for everyone! Posting allowed only from registered and logged-in members! Where's the hurt in that!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:04 AM

And why's the print on this thread so small or is it just me? The other threads are normal size. My poor eyes!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM

I am not sure what "arch-revisionist, or "stonewaller" means or why Steve thinks it applies to me.
I do know what "far-right" means, and you are wrong about me Steve.

I have been accused of it many times, because name calling is much easier than challenging what I actually say.

I always respond by asking for a far right quote from me.
No-one has ever found one, and Steve will not be able to either.
It is an entirely false accusation made just to smear me.

Politically I am centre/right, which is the majority position in England.
I used to vote for New Labour in the Blair days, which no far-right person would admit to.

Steve, please just respond to what I actually say instead of applying offensive labels that you can not substantiate.
That is ad hominem personal attack, not debate.
It is a kind of hate speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:31 AM

"Hey mods! Why not stop all this nonsense? A unique moniker for everyone! Posting allowed only from registered and logged-in members! Where's the hurt in that!"

Amen, amen, amen! A thousand times "Amen"!
But you're wasting your time making sensible, useful suggestions, Steve. I've been telling the mods exactly the same thing since Pontius was an Air-Force Cadet, to absolutely no avail. None are so deaf as They Who Will Not Hear and, in trying to help improve the forum, you just become a Bad Guy in their eyes.

And yes, the print is ridiculously small. WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:35 AM

Describing an entire racial/cultural group as being culturally implanted to rape children is both racist and "hate speech"
Describing homosexuals as being disease carriers and constantly harping on illnesses they are prone to is "hate speech"
Vigorously opposing activities to win equal rights and opposing with the same vigour the wining of some of those equal rights if "hate speech"
Defending the enforced wearing of "yellow star-like" armbands marking asylum seekers for identification, and continuing to defend it after the practice has been recognised as dangers and abandoned is "hate speech"
Supporting massacres and mass destruction by describing the opponents of such behaviour as ""Antisemitic" is both Antisemitic and "hate speech"
Describing any of the above as "stomach heaving" most certainly is not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:38 AM

Heheh. I love the Pontius allusion. It reminds me of someone or other on Crackerjack decades ago saying that he'd known Max Jaffa since he was a tangerine. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:38 AM

For once I can say that I agree with Jim's whole post.
All good examples of hate speech, but never seen on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:44 AM

Good post, Jim. Do you think it will steer our deluded Guest towards recognising real hate speech when he sees it? I'm gloomy on that score.

And do give over, Keith. Your attacks on Pakistani men, your blind defence of a vicious, repressive regime in Israel and your defence of the marking-out of asylum seekers as different are all seriously right-wing traits. That isn't hate speech. That's analysis. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 08:03 AM

"All good examples of hate speech, but never seen on Mudcat.
"
The top - and worst one comes from you
I have ity at hand Keith - want me to put it up again?
Ake's attitude to "plague carriers" are notorious
Your defending armbands is ongoing
Accusations of antisemitism - scatted allover the current Israel thread and still fully accessible on at lest ten others.
Maybe we should list lying in defence of the indefencible as "hate speech" - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 08:21 AM

Tendentious and unintelligent misinterpretation of the citation of well-sourced evidence redounding against one's entrenched positions may not necessarily constitute hate-speech; but its motivations can frequently be questionable, and it is in any event not·right·bright.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 08:26 AM

"Tendentious and unintelligent misinterpretation of the citation of well-sourced evidence redounding against one's entrenched positions "
Care to give an example MIke - or would you rather just imply it, as the case may be?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,not the one who started the thread
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 08:31 AM

I agree whole-heartedly with Joe that those here who see themselves as so-called liberals are as rigid and as judgmental as the most extreme conservatives. I consider them as the tea party of the left as much as I consider them at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:05 AM

Having said that - waddya thing of it so far?
Specified criticism would be appreciated - would help us mend our ways
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:20 AM

Well that rules me out, Guest-with-tediously-unfunny-moniker that we don't have to believe anyway if we don't want to. I for one don't see myself as anything in particular. I might have admitted once or twice, when accused, to being a bit of a leftie. Lefties in the UK don't usually refer to themselves as liberals, as that carries historical pejorative undertones here. No-one wants to be another Jeremy Thorpe. Glad to clear that one up for the yanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Oh come on Steve, I could give you reams of "hate speech" from you, Richard, "Team Musket", which you supported wholeheartedly, and several others who shall remain nameless, but I've filed most of the very worst cursing, death wishes, libellous statements etc....as I like to know the true nature of the people I converse with.

Although a lifelong socialist I find the "left in a pack" much more vicious than the social conservatives, who have in general term a better grasp of reality.
In fact, this little goldfish bowl has been an excellent tutor in human behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:29 AM

Steve, you mean things like Vote Liberal ....... or I'll shoot your dog !!

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:37 AM

Give me my reams of hate speech then! Piss or get off the pot (and that isn't hate speech).

Or was it "Vote Liberal, otherwise I'll make you bite your pillow..." :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hate speech on Mudcat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 09:41 AM

A fish doesn't see the water it swims in, so one must conclude that the first guest doesn't see his own conservative environment, he only notices the pushback from the opposition.

The moderators have removed a lot of hate speech that members don't see to begin with, but on those threads where it appears and then everyone piles on and starts quoting and responding to it, removing the original speech is pointless without reading through and deleting all of the answers as well. It's a judgement call then, if the speech stays or the whole thread (or a large portion thereof) goes.

Finally, the answer, first nameless guest, is to stick to the threads above the line. If you don't like the playground, stay off of it. This is called BS for a reason.