Thursday, April 23, 2009

sl's cocoon bloggers ban another blogger ... over women's underwear or something

that small part of sri lankan blogosphere where dead arguments and cliché are kept alive with lukewarm prose and mutual back massages, where slandering of sl military is ok while soiling of indi padashow's bottom due to well deserved kicks cause a great fluttering of wails and shrieks, where in short, everything smells of mothballs, has succeeded in getting yet another blogger banned from kottu.

cause of it seems to be some sort of silly (as usual) argument between the indi.padashow's suckerboys network and one nibras bawa about some women's clothing or something. it seems that (again as usual) whole thing, through clicking and rubbing of each other wrong and right way developed into a narcissistic web of petty blog posts.

untangling the now thoroughly stained and stinking cocoon silk, would be as difficult as making sense of jarndyce and jarndyce in bleak house. so do not even attempt it unless you want to get cocooned for life ( indeed, you have to use the internet's cocoons, the caches, to access some of the deleted posts).

(btw their self absorption is such that they consider their small corner of sl blogosphere, "the blogosphere" and refer to it and to themselves as such in all seriousness. eg this utterly petty squabble is referred to as "the blogosphere vs nibras bawa" or similar. could anything be more against the spirit of internet? also the drummerboy first these days among the puckered lips, was reportedly "leading the blogosphere" in this ... er fight. even megalomaniac terrorist big pussy must be impressed.)

anyway nibras bawa seems to have got the better of it due to his better sniffing ability, so the suckerboys went in a huff to their idol indi.padashow and puffed, and got nibras bawa banned from kottu .

indi is covering up the results of suckerboy stimulation using a fig leaf about kottu terms prohibiting revealing of blogger identities. (btw indi demands that nibras bawa limit himself to outing indi. lol. funny that. someone might take those words,literally, one of these days). you can also see some of the suckerboys bobbing their heads in gratitude underneath in the comment section of the fig leaf post. ( as for my comment see pps below).

anyway this fig leaf will be adequate, if consistently used.
but he forgets to mention that by the same count he should ban his primary blog, indi.ca (he is still in denial about his (part?) authorship of padashow.wordpress. so i am not referring to that here) which attacked me using my real name ( as i have said from the first i like to keep my name private but give it to anyone who asks on a reciprocal basis).

when will these ppl ( both indi and his suckerboys ) understand the meaning of word hypocrisy ? never perhaps.

they will continue to live in the self created cocoon where they are protected from reality, honesty and truth (all of which can be bitter sometimes). they find sniffing mothballs and fantasizing in cocoon silk less risky, i suppose.

meanwhile, all other readers of blogs, who prefer fresh fruit and red meat to dead moths, better start using feed readers ( google reader highly recommended ).



ps
i do expect to be banned from kottu myself one of these days.
while only about 10-15% (on blog posting days, otherwise 1-2%) of my readers come from kottu, that is still too large given the absolute numbers involved. so put this blog's feed in your feed readers if you came here from kottu.

pps
btw i left the following comment (comment-233014) in indi's blog but as usual in recent months he has censored it (as of now) . he has a perfect right to do as owner of blog .
man, these cocooned bloggers of sl ( about 10% of sl blogospshere at most, though more in kottu since majority of sl bloggers are deliberately excluded from it ) are doing their best to keep alive a dead stale arguments that concerns nobody but each other .

everyone involved and their blogs now smell of dead mothballs.
ppl who are tired the this petty self absorption are invited to read a fresh blog with red meat (and delicious bitter sweet fruits) in it (like mine ) :-)
and to use a feed reader instead of kottu. ( google reader highly recommended )

anyway this new exclusion give rise to interesting questions
is indi going to throw this blog out of kottu?.after all he used my real name (which i like to keep private but give to anyone on a reciprocal basis) to attack me in this blog .
hypocrisy anyone?

i expect this comment will censored as all my recent comments ( afraid of the truth ? btw blog owner has a perfect right censor, but censorship it is ) . and may even result in my exclusion from kottu according to arbitrary terms of kottu . :-)

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can I laugh here?

sittingnut said...

yes of course. you can even laugh at me. i don't ban or censor.

The Benevolent Dictator said...

So, you would be ok with it if someone outed you? Because that's what you are condoning here. You're a sad man for not standing up to what's right just because you don't like some people or don't share their opinions.

Plus, if Indi is all that you keep insisting he is, then he would have just banned you a long time ago. Don't these thought ever occur to you when you dream up your grand conspiracy theories?

Of course, you will reply with a convoluted reply that will give me a headache if I try to read.

sittingnut said...

the benevolent dictator:
do you receive a reward for becoming the first suckerboy here to defend indi?:

you seem to have a permanent headache and born inability to understand what you read .
anyway thanks for conceding preemptive defeat in an argument, even your weak brain can see the faults of.

So, you would be ok with it if someone outed you? Because that's what you are condoning here.
see the word "consistent" in the post? now look it up in the dictionary, if you can.
was indi consistent? and will he be consistent?
or was he merely hypocritical ? facts are there . :-)

rest of the comment is for those who do not have such a disability .

You're a sad man for not standing up to what's right just because you don't like some people or don't share their opinions.
right? what is "right" here .
being consistent? respecting other ppl's opinions ?
if so it is indi who is wrong according to verifiable facts

and i do consider banning and censoring ppl you "don't like ...or don't share ... opinions", wrong. do you ?

Plus, if Indi is all that you keep insisting he is, then he would have just banned you a long time ago.
all things i say about indi are true and fully backed up and verifiable .

i don't know why he doesn't ban me. you have to ask him? as somebody did in his blog some time ago .

think of it this way-
why doesn't mahinda buffalo ( if he is all indi and ilk call him ) ban sunday leader ?
maybe he has more brains than you, and can think of all the implications, which can cut both ways .

Don't these thought ever occur to you when you dream up your grand conspiracy theories?
what conspiracy theories?
does anyone conspire ? about what ? did i say any such ? no

may be you think you suckerboys getting a blogger baned is a conspiracy theory of mine ?
blogger was banned .
and suckerboys were "fighting" him
wanted him banned.
are now grateful to indi for it
.all verifiable facts.

so where is the theory ( let alone conspiracy ) ?
:-)

as for my thoughts, i stick to facts and what ppl do.and don't care too much what ppl think or claim to think . may be you should do the same. :-)

The Benevolent Dictator said...

I predicted..you delivered.

Do you have a random blog generator or something...where you put in a few words and it churns out mumbo jumbo? I mean you can't really be writing all that!

You can make a lot of money. Hahahah

sittingnut said...

lol this from a from a guy who devotes considerable percentage (100% this year up to now ) of his blog posts to attacking me, a poor old "random blog generator". lol
i suppose you have to say something( even after saying you will not do so) even if it is silly nonsense, to cover up your inability to defend the indefensible. that is the born destiny of slavish suckerboys like you . :-)

meanwhile others are free to read, understand, and even laugh at the alleged "mumbo jumbo" or at mr self styled dictator . :-)

The Benevolent Dictator said...

What are you complaining about? My posts are short and sweet. People don't get a headache reading what i write.

sittingnut said...

did i complain?
i just stated the fact that 100% of your posts this year are there to attack me, poor old "random blog generator" .lol
as i said you have a problem understanding.even simple statements and seem to suffer a lot of hallucinations ( about me and what i write ).no complaints .:-)

Liberal Lanka said...

//think of it this way-
why doesn't mahinda buffalo ( if he is all indi and ilk call him ) ban sunday leader?

Are you serious man? A prime example of your fake libertarian ideals. Kottu is indi's private property, while media is not the property of the president. How can you equate indi banning you and president banning a news paper because he doesn't like it?

The Benevolent Dictator said...

I notice you still didn't answer my question (instead choosing to ramble on like you always do).

Let me ask again.

So, you would be ok with it if someone outed you?

Answer please...

sittingnut said...

liberal lanka:
first thanks for coming to indi defense, as usual,... like a slave .
and thanks for asking aquestion that probably needs clarification to ppl with low iq like you

1/
how exactly does my stating a probable reason for my not getting banned at kottu an example of my "fake libertarian ideals"?
do explain .
i did not say he cannot ban me from his private property ( in fact i said he as owner can censor me in his blog, and that also goes for kottu as well) .
i did not say he should ban me or anyone else. (btw where do you stand on this ? pro banning, are you ?)
i did not say media is the property of president .
i did not even say that buffalo should ban "sunday leader"

if i said any of that or similar, that would be against libertarian principles , but i did not . read .
2/
while assuming things i did not say, you missed crucial parts of what i did say, hence your mistakes
this is what i said .
i don't know why he doesn't ban me. you have to ask him? as somebody did in his blog some time ago .

think of it this way-
why doesn't mahinda buffalo ( if he is all indi and ilk call him ) ban sunday leader ?
maybe he has more brains than you, and can think of all the implications, which can cut both ways .

"i don't know"
get it ?
"ask him"
get it?
"mahinda buffalo ( if he is all indi and ilk call him) "
meaning among others that he thinks sri lanka to be his property to do what he wants. (notice it is indi and ilk who has said this. not me.)
get it ?
"more brains" to "think of all the implications"
get it? ( you probably do not get this even if you try)

add to that indi's need to keep appearances, meaning he wants to act as if kottu is an open public place with laws or terms, and a not a private property where he acts as master and a dictator. his fig leaf post linked to above is example of that ;he says he is banning "nibras bawa" for breaking rules, not bc he as owner has right to ban him regardless of anything ( btw i empathize this is just for appearances , he acts like a owner and does not really follow the "rules" consistently as i pointed out .but he feels this need for fig leafs cover up his actions )

given all that ( already pointed out by me but missed by you ) equating buffalo's with indi's actions is not as absurd as you seem to think .

-
will you admit the mistakes? or post irrational nonsense again ( imagining things i did not say and missing crucial words i did say ), or will you try to run as you did in another thread ? :-)

sittingnut said...

the benevolent dictator:
i have already answered your question .
i like to keep my name private but give it to anyone who asks on a reciprocal basis
so if anyone revealed my real name publicly , that would not be to my liking.

but you, as a confused idiot trying salvage some respectability after the kicking you got above, are confusing that with indi banning someone under the pretense of breaking kottu rules. a different thing altogether.
here the matter is about indi's inconsistency and hypocrisy.

do you get it now ?
well others will

The Benevolent Dictator said...

The relevant extract from your reply to my comment

--Quote--

So, you would be ok with it if someone outed you? Because that's what you are condoning here.
see the word "consistent" in the post? now look it up in the dictionary, if you can.
was indi consistent? and will he be consistent?
or was he merely hypocritical ? facts are there . :-)

rest of the comment is for those who do not have such a disability .

--Unquote--

Now where above have you said
'i like to keep my name private but give it to anyone who asks on a reciprocal basis'?

I like your answer to Lanka Liberal by the way. True to your form. My head is dizzy.

You seemed to have broadened your vocabulary a bit as I see you're using the term 'Indi's slave' a lot. Congratulations are in order I believe. One must also appreciate it when a man improves his station in life.

sittingnut said...

lol, fool digs himself deeper
Now where above have you said
'i like to keep my name private but give it to anyone who asks on a reciprocal basis'?

see the main post itself for the quote . obviously you did not read it. if you did, you would have realized that i have answered your point even before you asked it .

glad to know you read my kicking of "liberal lanka" even if you are too dizzy to read or understand. don't worry your master can see that all his slaves got kicked . it is not just you . :-)

also glad you like 'Indi's slave' and indi's "suckerboys" , good terms for ppl like you who continue to defend indi even when he is indefensible in his hypocrisy.

hope you master rewards you adequately for your blind loyalty here ( you continue on even when though your brain is dizzy, and you are made a utter fool of (see above)).

do you hope to get a greater reward than other slave? or will he try to pass you in his next comment?
-
lets see :-) and enjoy this competition among slaves

The Benevolent Dictator said...

Oh no...you got me!

I was aware you mentioned it in your rant. However I asked the question after I read that because I wanted you to specifically answer than and not mumble about. In your reply, you just went off tangent. You could have told me to refer to your post for the answer but you didn't...you just can't answer the question. And you still haven't.

Me, an Indi slave? :-) the problem is that you assume the rest of us think and act like you do. Slavishly defend anyone you like irrespective of whether they are right or wrong and vice versa. Which of course leads you to the conclusion that I must be Indi's golaya even though I only pointed out the flaws in your argument vis-a-vis Indi kicking out NB.

But then...reason is beyond you I guess.

Carry On Sittingnut...

Liberal Lanka said...

Man oh man, sorry, I should have known that just the appearance of me makes you confused and pushes you into tantrums. Sure it was hard to understand even after I tried, think it is my problem? :)

How did I defend Indi? Your ape like derivative skills always amuse me. If you have any brain bigger than a parrot's you should know that I didn't take any side in the NB drama and I am one of the few who still maintains a good relation with him. You are asking for another challenge my friend, don't push me.

Why indi doesn't ban you is not something I intend to find out. But if he can ban NB I don't see any backlash by banning you. On the other hand Mahinda not banning sunday leader should not even be considered because he has no right to do it. He will have to answer questions while indi will not. understand? A libertarian would not have asked such a question.

Since you have always been interested in my IQ level, how did you find out your IQ level is so high. Because to me you look exactly like one of those morons with only an inherited wealth.

BTW I did not run the last time, I spoon fed you point by point and you hid for sometime before surfacing again probably hoping I had gone away.

sittingnut said...

the benevolent dictator:
you asked
So, you would be ok with it if someone outed you?i answered -
i have already answered your question .
"i like to keep my name private but give it to anyone who asks on a reciprocal basis"
so if anyone revealed my real name publicly , that would not be to my liking.

but you, as a confused idiot trying salvage some respectability after the kicking you got above, are confusing that with indi banning someone under the pretense of breaking kottu rules. a different thing altogether.
here the matter is about indi's inconsistency and hypocrisy.

do you get it now ?
well others will
this is on comment at 4/24/2009 9:40 pm above
as can be seen, there was no tangent , and confusion was on your part.
but you still claim you have not been answered .
typical of a slave like you to rely on such denial of obvious facts
-
you say I only pointed out the flaws in your argument vis-a-vis Indi kicking out NB
where? what flaws? pl quote your words doing that
you did no such things

-
your behavior here can be seen by all . you are the one defending the indefeasible hypocrisy of indi with silly arguments that turn out to be figments of your imagination , all the while claiming you are feeling dizzy etc .
who else but a slave will act in that despicable manner with such blind obedience ? ( btw "golaya" is too good a word for likes of you . your behavior is slavish, and you know it . so you jump to other words i did not use) .
-

on the other hand your claims about me are totally unsupported. where have i ever acted "wrongly "? you are unable give even one example bc you know there are none and if you create one out of thin air, i will expose it to sunlight and let everyone see it crumbling ( see the first part of this comment for eg )

i always give specifics, you hide behind generalities and hallucinations. ( when your friends cannot censor or ban )

sittingnut said...

liberal lanka :
your own arguments indicate as to who is confused

How did I defend Indi?
then why are you here attacking me ( as you did in your first comment ) in a post about indi and his suckerboys?
-
I didn't take any side in the NB drama
did i say you did? this is not about whole tangled "NB drama" ( read the main post ) it is about banning of a blogger (nb) from kottu and the hypocrisy that reveals about indi et al.
again i ask you why are you here attacking me ( as you did in your first comment ), if you do not even understand what it is about ?
-
.... He will have to answer questions while indi will not. understand?
then why did indi answer such questions in the linked post ? :-) read my answer to you at 4/24/2009 9:26 pm .
-
A libertarian would not have asked such a question
:-) that is an empty unsupported statement.
i ask you again to specify what libertarian principle did i violate ?
as i said
how exactly does my stating a probable reason for my not getting banned at kottu an example of my "fake libertarian ideals"?
do explain .
i did not say he cannot ban me from his private property ( in fact i said he as owner can censor me in his blog, and that also goes for kottu as well) .
i did not say he should ban me or anyone else. (btw where do you stand on this ? pro banning, are you ?)
i did not say media is the property of president .
i did not even say that buffalo should ban "sunday leader"

if i said any of that or similar, that would be against libertarian principles , but i did not . read . ...

.
read the rest of 4/24/2009 9:26 pm comment too, where i pointed out what you missed while imagining things i did not say

you are unable to support the argument that i am not a libertarian from anything i said, but you repeat it as if mere repetition will prove your point .
that zombie like repetition of an unsupported irrational belief is indeed slavish behavior

-
Since you have always been interested in my IQ level, how did you find out your IQ level is so high.
usual way :-)
-
you look exactly like one of those morons with only an inherited wealth.
typical standard issue diversionary tangent argument of a loser
you already know you lost otherwise even you will not use this type of argument.
-
BTW I did not run the last time, I spoon fed you point by point and you hid for sometime before surfacing again probably hoping I had gone away.
lol
everyone can see what happened last time and judge whether or not you ran like the cur you are :-)
who are you fooling? yourself? lol

Passionatelypatient said...

I know that I will be reported anytime now as the fraternity at Kotty have their knives into me. But in fairness to all who followed the drama, this is the final comment I got from one of the readers who left this comment - a comment which nobody will see as they will successfully make sure that I am out of the blogsphere. Jaded Shades, if you are reading, please don't throw knives at fellow bloggers who have NOTHING to do with your personal life. Please understand that I never got involved with you or what you were doing and only reacted to place your identity on record on my blog because you crossed the line SEVERAL times and felt that you and others in your fray could bully me into a corner.

You may read this and answer to it in your blog.

- Passionatelypatient

-----------------------------
COMMENT LEFT ON MY BLOG

I have been following this blog for some time not and let me tell you how amussing all this has been. I was sorry to see PP leave this blog site just as things have started to heat up on her page, or we never know, she might be viewing this page as a spectator enjoying this little show down that has been going on.

PP's 'Dead or Alive-Part One and Two' was a good read and let me clear all doubts to all of you once and for all, that story was not fictional at all. If it were, hats off to PP for a splendid job.

Now let me shed some light on 'Jadedshades. I've known her for a lot longer than anyone one of you'll who claim to know her so well.

Jadedshades is a coniving, self centerd, relationship breaking whore. She has tried to break friendships (and succeeded in some) and relationships (and from what I hear she's still at it).

Jadedshades claimed to be in love with a certain person who she ended up sleeping with. People thought that she was a saint, but we were all mistaken. While with the love of her life (as she put it) or her best buddy as she also refered to himwas sleeping around with anything that moved. She was caught bullshitting as every step saying that there was 'nothing going on', of her more famous line ' we're just good friends'. Good friends my ass. She was screwing around all the time. And some ppl used to actually fall for her bullshit.

JJ you claim that Jaded shades was a 'saint' at 'Yes'. She was far from it. She went about fucking things up over there as well (not to mention ppl too). Jaded Shades meesed up 'S's relationship with his wife. It's after that, that his wife wondered where he would be at every minute. Why was she being like that? because of you, you bitch. But I do blame both as there's no smoke without fire.

Jaded shades you claim that everyone loves you in the industry but that alone shows how stupid and naive you are. The people who are nice to you don't obviously know your true colors like some of us do.

TMS says, why can't a man and woman be friends? They can be friends for sure, but they should know where to draw that line. BUt it's so obvious when there's something going on with two ppl. it show is their body language. And jadedshades is a woman who can't keep her mouth shut, she told a few people about this, hence how it got out other ppl.

Jaded shades has no morals, and she acts as if she's Ms. Good two shoes. For all of you who think that, you're so fucking wrong. She's a slut to the core and who will stop at nothing. I don't think anyone (who knows her better) has any regard or respect for this petite bitch.

So jadedshades I think it's you who needs to get the fuck out of this blogshpere.



NBT

Julie said...

This is by far one of the most amusing blogs ever!!! and i agree with you all the way about the drama on kothu being too childish.. but i also think that indi and his little boys probably just kept it going just to increase the hits on their blogs... eventhough they didnt realize that what we all saw was their sheer stupidity. So hats off to you for being straightforward about this and as to the comment added last by pp about jadedshades... alll i can say is that i agree with he or she because what was mentioned word by word is nothing but the truth. :) so PP hope to see your next blog out soon :)

Passionatelypatient said...

Thanks Julie, my new blog can be viewed here...

PP