rigorousintuition.ca

crikkett wrote:Those aren't brown contacts. Blue eyes can turn brown in the presence of a high toxic body load or with the use of steroid-based eye medication.

jackriddler wrote:The sickfuck who did the Ian McKellen = Ron Paul smearage in lurid blood-red and made sure to add in some "1 percent" talk (as an application of keyword hijacking theory?) needs some battering.

He at least deserves to be mocked for his spelling.

Or a shade of iris described as "blue" can look darker depending on light and photo. But now we're dignifying bilge that's about as discourse-worthy as a phrenological chart divining the nobility of your character from forehead shape. Looking for a name for the genre: Confusionist transgressivism? Attack porn? Random defamation? (Pick any two people out of a directory of celebrities. Invent a consciously absurd association that defames both. Throw in pictures of blood and shit. Call it the radical truth that They don't want you to know.)

.

I was just about to post a long thread where I would have argued that Anders Brevik, Julian Sands, and Julian Assange all lack ears. But I see that Ed Chiarini AKA DallasGoldBug has completely debunked my theory. I notice that we can only see their left ears and Julian Sands is obviously hiding something (or nothing, rather) with the way he does his hair so I may be able to salvage some of my work.

It still doesn't seem as if it's gotten any traction - it's even a joke on the Icke forum if that's any measure of how lame it is.

But the Guardian managed to put their names together in one sentence under the heading "All in this together?" Here's the relevant paragraph - I notice they grouped him with the "undepants bomber" and sex criminal (?) Dominique Strauss-Kahn's too:

2010 seemed to be a year for individuals, with Abdulmutallab (the underpants bomber) and Assange heading the list of independent agenda setters. 2011 appears to have been more collective. This time the predominant group of actors has been: protesters, people and demonstrators (mainly in the Middle East), although Christine Lagarde's rise, and Dominique Strauss-Kahn's fall made the headlines, along with the mass murder committed by Anders Breivik in Norway, Julian Assange's ongoing problems, and Andy Coulson's fall from grace.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/min ... sfeed=true

Gah!

So this latest smear attempt is timed (as far as I can tell - the guy's website is a mess) with not only Assange's extradion appeal hearing, but also announcements that he will be a featured on the Simpson's 500th episode and that he will host an RT Talk Show that's filming now, so I guess they've got to try.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-31/a ... de/3803252

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks ... y2HQ8hzO0Y

JackRiddler wrote:Confusionist transgressivism? Attack porn? Random defamation?

Facial hijacking? *ducks and runs*

crikkett wrote:Those aren't brown contacts. Blue eyes can turn brown in the presence of a high toxic body load or with the use of steroid-based eye medication.

jackriddler wrote:The sickfuck who did the Ian McKellen = Ron Paul smearage in lurid blood-red and made sure to add in some "1 percent" talk (as an application of keyword hijacking theory?) needs some battering.

He at least deserves to be mocked for his spelling.

Or just mocked.

The Ron Paul one is almost funny because he and Ian McKellan actually do look quite a bit alike, but the others clearly do not, and if the freak who made those photoshops believes they do, then he's seeing things that are simply not there. Like, you know, he's got mental problems.

Sorry if that sounds non-empathetic, but I have little patience for conspiraporn.