Dennisism #11: Lie

You're probably not aware of it, but an opinion that is not true is a lie. This according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Although what he really meant to say (IMO) is that "an opinion that I disagree with is a lie". Given the fact that opinions often can't be proven to be right or wrong (at least not unequivocally).

If the world were that Black and White nobody would hold differing opinions, as the truth would be self-evident, and anyone who attempted to put forward a wrong "opinion" would immediately be called on it.

In any case, what we have here is another of Mr. Marks' word re-definitions. The REAL definition of lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood". A definition that directly contradicts the definition made up by Marks.

Given the fact that an opinion that is wrong lacks the "deliberate intent to deceive". Although Marks' re-definition does allow him to call anyone who holds an opinion that is contrary to his own a "liar". Which is clearly the entire point of this Dennisism.

BTW, sometimes opinions can be proven wrong, although that doesn't stop some people from holding them; believing what they want despite the facts. Often due to cognitive dissonance (which is something Dennis suffers from, big time).

I would say that this sometimes borders on lying (if someone is intentionally ignorant of the truth), but that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to Dennis Marks. Or, what I mean is that isn't what I'm talking about in regards to him saying others are "lying" (with their incorrect opinions).

Mr. Marks tells very many of these "lies" IMO. It is demonstrable that he has a GREAT number of opinions that are wrong, and (for him to hold them) borders on lying (as it requires an intentional ignorance of a significant magnitude).

Anyway, that an opinion that is wrong is a lie... I might use that.

TADM #85

Dennisism #10: Racism

Time for another "Dennisim" post. Another installment in the series of blog posts in which I chronicle the redefinition of words that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) engages in.

This time it's his redefinition of what "racism" means, which he does so he can apply it to Black people (who are, apparently way more racist than White people in Dennis' opinion). And refer to programs designed to combat racism (Affirmative Action) as "racist". These policies are blindly racist" he says. Although, IMO, it is extremely racist of Dennis to claim that Affirmative Action leads to "laziness and expecting a free ride".

First, however, the comment by Dennis that prompted me to author this post. After a few months of inactivity on this blog I was Googling around and found the following.

Dennis Marks: But if you read WD, Col. Fried Chicken, whatever he is, the Sharptons of the world are not racist at all. WD has made up his own personal definition of racism. (7/20/2013 AT 08:33:00 PM EDT).

No, it's actually Dennis who has his own definition.

Dennis Marks: From Google, by the way. Remember, these are not my definitions. But just the generally accepted ones: "rac·ism/'ra?siz?m/ Noun: [1] The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as... [2] Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. (10/24/2012 AT 10:30am).

OK, so I'd say I agree with this definition. It is, in fact, VERY similar to the definition I've previously referenced on my blog (SWTD #131).

Dictionary.com: Racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

So, Dennis and I are in agreement? Actually, no. What Dennis posted above ISN'T his definition. I guess he screwed up when he posted this, as he does not believe with the "directed against someone of a different race" part. An example of him not agreeing with this would be his accusation that Touré Neblett (an African American man) said something racist about Herrman Cain (another African American man).

Dennis thinks that Toure is guilty of "bashing [Herman Cain] for his skin color". When Dennis said this (which is CLEARLY in disagreement with the definition he posted on 10/24/2012), I asked him "how can a black man be racist against another black man?".

And Dennis (in disagreement with with the definition he posted on 10/24/2012) said "the definition of racism has no caveats that the racist and their target must be of different races". BUT IT DOES!

And the fact that the definition ABSOLUTELY DOES include the caveat that the racist and their target must be of different races is a caveat that Dennis acknowledges (with his 10/24/2012 comment).

But the Dennis definition (the Dennisism) removes that portion (which is why I am sure he screwed up by posting the actual definition on 10/24/2012).

Under the Dennis definition of "racism", the individual being racist can be directing this racism against someone of his own race. Like Toure did with Herman Cain (Dennis alleges). But if Toure thinks his "own race is superior", why the f*ck would he be "bashing" Cain for his skin color? If Toure was a racist he'd be saying things about how having Black skin makes him superior.

Is Dennis "crazy like an informed fox" as he claims? Nope. He's a liar who changes the definition of words to fit his agenda. Here the agenda is denying his own racism. He isn't racist, Black people are racist. Against other Black people. Even though the definition (the correct one) says that, to be racism, it has to be "directed against someone of a different race".

And he has the balls (is insane enough) to insist that "WD has made up his own personal definition of racism" when I used the SAME definition he used (even if accidently... which he will now likely delete if he reads this)?

For the record, I do believe that Black people can't be racist (against Whites) because racism is based on oppression, and (at least in this country) Whites are the oppressors (SWTD #195). But that isn't what Dennis is referring to. He's talking about the Toure argument and his bullshit made-up definition (Dennisism) that says "the definition of racism has no caveats that the racist and their target must be of different races".

TADM #84

Dennisism #8 & 9: Oinkers, Oinking & Unearned Gifts, Unearned Handouts

Who are the "oinkers" according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)? Also, what are these "unearned gifts" he refers to quite frequently?

Oinkers, it turns out, are people who toil for low pay and, because they often struggle to get by, request a pay raise by advocating for an increase in the minimum wage.

What follows is an example of Dennis calling out these "oinkers" (in the context of a discussion about robots replacing human labor).

Dennis Marks: Maybe not your highly skilled, valuable job. But that is what would surely happen if those lazy and greedy "oinkers" who demand to be paid double what the job is worth at McDonalds get their way. There's a robot smiling somewhere every time one of these boars or sows pickets a McDonalds. (5/1/2015 AT 4:23am).

"Oinkers" are minimum wage workers who want a pay increase. But this Dennisized word's noun form also has a verb form.

Dennis Marks: It's like the McDonald's workers doing work worth about $8 an hour and oinking for a handout of $15 an hour without doing a single thing to earn this amount. Other than oink for more money. (1/6/2015 AT 3:58pm).

So asking for a raise, or, rather, protesting for an increase in the minimum wage is, according to Dennis, "oinking".

So what about "unearned gifts"?

Dennis Marks: Given the attitudes of those like WD, who expect struggling small business owners to hand out at least $10,000 of unearned gifts to employees (per employee) per year, it is obvious that they don't respect other's property and feel entitled to it. An attitude of pure, and purely destructive, greed. (4/25/2015 AT 8:26pm).

"Unearned gifts" refers to an increase in the minimum wage that employees do not deserve (again, according to Dennis). (note that in the comment above Dennis references me with the phrase "those like WD").

So... here is my issue with Dennis' slandering of low pay workers who protest for an increase in the minimum wage... Why should employers not pay the full cost of labor? Why, when businesses must pay the full cost of whatever raw materials it takes to run their business, do some think that (when it comes to labor) the taxpayers should be subsidizing the price?

Which is what is taking place when the minimum wage does not reflect the worker's cost of living (at least when they're working a 40 hour week). The subsidies come into play when the worker, being unable to live on the too-low minimum wage, is forced to ask for help from the government (in the form of food stamps or other public assistance).

...many full-time workers qualify for food stamps or other government assistance. If the minimum wage were raised to a "living wage" we, the taxpayers, would not have to subsidize these corporations with government handouts. Yes, if wages were raised prices would go up to cover the employers' added costs. But isn't that really a reflection of the capitalistic system? (Minimum Wage Vs. Corporate Welfare by Jim Kinninger, RGJ.com 12/11/2013).

Dennis, with his references to "oinkers", "oinking", "unearned gifts" and "unearned handouts" is making an argument in FAVOR of corporate welfare. IMO it is business owners who advocate (or lobby) for not increasing the minimum wage (or getting rid of it) who are the REAL "oinkers". And these business owners are the ones who are greedy in asking for unearned gifts (or handouts) from the taxpayers.

Dennis' pro-corporate-welfare arguments sicken me. But all these comments are from the blog of one Willis Hart, a Libertarian blogger who cottons to the meme that says we all need to bow down and worship the "job creators" (AKA the oligarchs).

Personally, I say NO to the audaciousness of greedy businesses that demand taxpayers subsidize their labor costs.

Here's a stark number for understanding how low-wage employers are relying on the kindness of taxpayers: $153 billion. That's the annual bill that state and federal governments are footing for working families making poverty-level wages at big corporations such as Walmart (WMT) and McDonald's (MCD), according to a new study from the University of CA Berkeley Labor Center. Because these workers are paid so little, they are increasingly turning to government aid programs such as food stamps to keep them from dire poverty, the study found. (How low-wage employers cost taxpayers $153B a year by Aimee Picchi. CBS Money Watch, 4/13/2015).

Shame on Dennis for being an oinker oinking for unearned taxpayer handouts on behalf of greedy business owners who don't want to pay the full price of the labor they utilize to generate their profits.

(Note: I previously covered this topic on my other blog in a post titled "Conservatives Pro-Mooching When Tax Payer Handouts Go To Business Community", SWTD #222).

TADM #65

Dennisism #7: Violent Felon

Who is a "violent felon" according to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks)? It's someone who has been accused of violence, but for which said violence has not been proven. As for the "felon" part, by "felon" Dennis means someone who has never been convicted of a felony.

The following idiot remarks from Dennis, in regards to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson MO on August 9, 2014...

Dennis Marks: Just like, in my view, I can't see any reason why the cop had to fire so many shots at the violent felon assaulting him. (8/21/2014 AT 4:11am).

First of all, Michael Brown has no criminal record, which means he was never even arrested, let alone charged with and convicted of a felony. Which is a REQUIREMENT for referring to someone as a "felon"... that they have been charged and convicted of a felony...

The Legal Dictionary: felon n. a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison. (Link).

No felony conviction. No record at all. Not a felon... to anyone but Dennis, that is. And the supposed strongarm robbery that Brown committed just prior to being shot is also disputed.

Michael Brown seems to have paid for his cigarillos... [surveillance] video [supposedly] shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery. ...the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street. In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a negative light, [the police] missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets. (article by John Prager, from Americans Against the Tea Party. via Crooks and Liars, 8/18/2014).

So, no felony conviction and also quite likely no act for which Michael Brown might have been convicted of a crime later. In any case, stealing a box of cigars wouldn't have been a felony but a misdemeanor... *if* that is what happened (and the evidence suggests that it is not).

As for the assault, the verdict on that is... possibly. That is the cop's version of events, but it should be noted that other witnesses dispute the assault. Wikipedia refers to what happened as an "altercation". CNN describes the incident as follows...

Rachel Clarke and Christopher Lett, CNN: Some witnesses say the teenager assaulted the officer at the outset and tried to grab his gun; other witnesses say Wilson was the aggressor. (What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson, 8/26/2014).

But this would not be the first time Mr. Marks has accused someone of being a "felon" who was never even charged with a crime...

Dennis Marks: Zimmerman was an armed neighborhood watch guy spoiling for a confrontation, and Martin was a drug-crazed berserker (a felon who should have been behind bars). A true Battle of Stalingrad: both bad guys. But one of them killed the other. (6/18/2013 AT 8:14pm).

Trayvon Martin, another unarmed African American teen who was shot and killed, was not a "bad guy", nor could any rational person describe his encounter with George Zimmerman as "a true Battle of Stalingrad". Because such a description would be truly idiotic. And Dennis saying "one killed the other" is also idiotic... because it was the one with the GUN who killed the other one!

Anyway, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman is something I am not convinced happened, as we only have Zimmerman's word for it. Some point to the witness John Good, but what Good actually said was he "couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom" and "he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk". (quotes from Good's testimony).

And remember that Zimmerman has good cause to lie, given the fact that he was facing a murder charge. But it is the fact that both of these young Black men were unarmed while their killers both had a firearm. So, no surprise that the unarmed person in each situation died.

More importantly, I would say that in both cases it isn't known if either of these young Black men were violent. In Trayvon's case there was only one witness (besides Good, who, as I already pointed out, did not see what some think he saw) and that witness is a liar (Zimmerman lied about many other things).

With Michael Brown the fact is we don't know yet what the witnesses are going to say under oath, or how the trial (provided there is one) might shake out. So we can NOT say he was "violent". And he (like Trayvon) was never convicted of any crime, including a felony.

But dumb Dennis refers to both of these individuals as "violent felons". And they're both Black... which causes me to think that the racism of Dennis might be a factor here. Especially given Dennis' past history of racist accusations against other African Americans.

In any case... the Dennisism "violent felon" is obviously defined as someone who has never convicted or even accused of a felony. Although they (always a young African American male) have been accused of violence - albeit with scant or inconclusive evidence (or testimony from an untrustworthy source). Another sign that race could be a factor when Dennis reaches these conclusions? He was a young Black male... so OF COURSE he was violent!

Or so Dennis' thinking might go. Who know when it comes to this delusional nutcase?

TADM #56. See also SWTD #170 and SWTD #270.

Dennisism #6: Neologism

The following is the definition of "neologism" according to the dictionary...

Dictionary.com, neologism: [1] a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase. [2] the introduction or use of new words or new senses of existing words. [3] a new doctrine, especially a new interpretation of sacred writings. [4] Psychiatry. a new word, often consisting of a combination of other words, that is understood only by the speaker: occurring most often in the speech of schizophrenics.

It is the 4th definition that applies to Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). A Dennisism *is* a neologism, or a word that is only understood by the speaker (in this case, Dennis). But that is NOT how Dennis defines "neologism".

A while back I used the word "truthy" in a conversation with Dennis. Dennis objected to the word, declaring it to be created by Stephen Colbert, and therefore new and a "neologism".

But, as it turns out, Dennis was wrong, as I pointed out to him originally, the term "truthiness" existed before Stephen Colbert used it. In regards to "truthiness", Wikipedia notes the following...

Linguist and OED consultant Benjamin Zimmer pointed out that the word "truthiness" already had a history in literature and appears in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), as a derivation of truthy, and The Century Dictionary, both of which indicate it as rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness, faithfulness" (Source: Wikipedia/Truthiness.

Therefore "truthy" is not a new word because it has had a dictionary entry for quite some time. And, therefore, it is also not a "neologism".

So, when Dennis claimed that "I avoid trendy neologisms", he must have been talking about "new words" created or used by others (or words he incorrectly perceives to be new, even when they are not). I say this because he surely comes up with a LOT of his own. Specifically I refer to the neologisms of Dennis I have documented here (using the term "Dennisism").

But I didn't know until now that the schizoid was redefining neologism as a putdown that only applies when people use words he doesn't like in arguments against him. "Truthy", in the example previously cited. But Dennis thinks coming up with his own new words and redefinitions is just fine. Although, in regards to the redefinitions, I'm just about positive he does not even know he's doing it. He actually believes that the dictionary agrees with him!

However, in regards to these invented words - the ones based on "canard" that I covered in my last Dennisism installment - those he has got to know aren't real.

Or, maybe he does think they're real. Apparently his buddy Lester Nation does, because when I pointed out that "canardo" is not a real word, Lester responded with the American Heritage Dictionary definition for "canard".

And, in response to that, the delusional Dennis imagined a victory (Lester proving to me that "canard" is a word, when we were actually talking about "canardo"), and voiced his agreement with Lester's imagined victory... exchange as follows...

rAtional nAtion: American Heritage Dictionary: ca·nard: Top Home >Library >Literature & Language >Dictionary (kə-närd') pronunciation n. An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story. A short winglike control surface projecting from the fuselage of an aircraft, such as a space shuttle, mounted forward of the main wing and serving as a horizontal stabilizer. An aircraft whose horizontal stabilizing surfaces are forward of the main wing. [French, duck, canard, probably from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié, to sell half a duck, to swindle, from Old French quanart, duck, from caner, to cackle, of imitative origin.] Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/canard#ixzz38Qcj71sQ Well Dervish, looks like there is a reality here you wish not revealed eh? :-) (7/24/2014 06:44:00 PM EDT). dmarks: Enlightening, RN. I expect a lot more self-righteous whining in reaction to this... (7/24/2014 07:34:00 PM EDT).

Obviously Dennis the dumb thinks Lester got the better of me with his response proving that canard is a word, even though I never said it wasn't. What I think we're actually dealing with here is a reality that Lester and Dennis "wish not revealed". Not even to themselves.

That reality? That they're both nuts. Enlightening? Not really, no. Those of us who aren't nuts realized this about Dennis and Lester long ago. This is nothing to whine about, however - self righteously or otherwise. It is simply a fact I have discerned by (perhaps foolishly) engaging these two in conversation.

TADM #53

Dennisism #5: Canard, Canardo, Canardish, Canarding, Canard-bait, El Canardo

This is the fifth installment that examines words or phrases that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) has rewritten to serve his own purposes. See here for the first installment and here for the post in which I explain (in greater detail) what a "Dennisism" is.

In this case, the term "Canardo" originated with the blogger Lester Nation. (AKA "rAtional" nAtion uSA). This blogger is the one who originally came up with the term (in reference to yours truly). Or he was the first to use it in regards to me. He claims he read it elsewhere, but refuses to cite a source. (Note: see update below. The source has now been discovered).

None-the-less I am attributing "canardo" to Dennis, as he took Lester's creation and ran like the wind, making it his own, as well as coming up with MANY derivatives. Variations on the word such as "canardish", which is an adjective to describe something that has the characteristics of a lie or the quality of one who is a liar; "canarding", which is the act of lie telling; "canard-bait", which is a "truth" that might elicit lies from another; "El Canardo", which is an insult name you might call someone you're accusing of lying, and, finally, the term "frying up in canardo oil", which (I guess) would be the same as telling someone you caught them red-handed lying.

All these variants of the word "canard" - all to accuse ME of being a liar - which is ironic, given the fact that it is Dennis who lies (as documented on this blog)... and which is why I recently declared Dennis to be the King Canardo.

Given Dennis' status as the king of canards, it is quite LOL-able that he is always complaining about ME starting a "crap-fest" (which is another neologism Lester invented and and Dennis ran with). A "crap-fest" being back and forth insult-trading, as opposed to healthy constructive debate.

But, that one person works so hard to invent his own "canard"-based pseudo neologisms in order to call another person a liar; is that not crap-festing of the highest order? Anyway, what this points to, I think, is that Dennis is QUITE obsessed with lying. Falsely calling others on it when he's the the one who is actually guilty of it (in that he lies all the time).

(for the record "canarding" might not be a variant that Dennis actually used, as I could not find an example; which is why there is no link. I could swear I saw him use it somewhere, however. Possibly in a deleted comment. Dennis has a habit of deleting comments whenever he notices me linking to them).

6/19/2015 Update: rAtional nAtion said previously (in a 7/25/2014 comment)... "In was in that context that the word Canardo, picked up from another fine wordsmith and operator of another blog was used. ... RN did not create Canardo, I, the owner of RN, simply borrowed and used Canardo in the manner it was intended".

I did not, at the time, know who the hell he was referring to... so I ignored what he said. Only recently, whilst visiting the blog Who's Your Daddy, did I notice another blogger using "canardo" (another blogger beside Lester and Dennis). In fact, this other blogger used/uses it quite frequently. That blogger? FreeThinke (see here for one example of a Freethinke use of "canardo").

What is odd about rAtional borrowing this pseudo neologism is that, while rAtional compliments FreeThinke, FreeThinke hates rAtional's guts (here Freethinke refers to rAtional as "Nursie Pooh"... because RN, while standing for "rAtional nAtion" also is an abbreviation for "Registered Nurse").

Anyway, the mystery is now solved. rAtional, the dude who refers to FreeThinke fawningly as "another fine wordsmith", was originally coined by Freethinke (although he may have picked it up elsewhere). I will continue to refer to "canardo" as a "Dennisism", however, due to the many (and I'm talking MANY) variants Dennis came up with (on his own). Neither rAtional nor Freethinke have (to my knowledge) used any of these other variants.

TADM #52

Dennisism #4: Old Bones

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) frequently objects to discussing topics he deems to be "old bones". What he means by this is that, in his estimation, the topic at hand has previously been discussed, an impasse was reached, and therefore further discussion is pointless.

Or, that is what he would like you to believe. That way he can continuously refer to old topics, spew his lies about them, and go unchallenged. He'll lie about Russ Feingold being in favor of infanticide, for example... and if you call him on it by presenting him with the truth, Dennis pulls the "old bones" card (or canard).

He can lie, but nobody can call him on his lies. I mean, HOW DARE anyone call Dennis out for the liar that he is? "Old bones", in other words, is a deflectionary phrase that means "how dare you call me on my spewing of lies"?

In addition, as I previously revealed on this blog, "old bones" is a coping mechanism that allows Dennis to deal with the cognitive dissonance that hurts his head.

As per this prior example, Dennis lied about Russ Feingold, and when presented with the truth (Russ Feingold saying "once a child has been born, there is no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health would any longer be at risk or an issue") he simply continued to lie.

Then, when I pressed the issue, Dennis said "I hear the sound of old bones being knawed, and... this time, turn away".

Dennis turned away because his mind couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance his insisting Feingold wants to murder babies and this statement by Feingold caused.

"Dennisism", BTW, refers words or phrases that Dennis Marks has rewritten to serve his own purposes (see here for the post in which I explain in greater detail what a Dennisism is).

Here the "Dennisism" is his rewriting of "old bones" to mean [definition 1] "how dare you call me on my lies! I get to lie with impunity. If not, I shall whine about bogus old bones".

And, [definition 2] "how dare you cause me cognitive dissonance! I shall now distract from you revealing me to be a liar by calling your pointing to facts as old bones, thus eliminating the cognitive dissonance".

Is this not sad and pathetic? Obviously it is both. Unfortunately the proprietors on the blogs Dennis frequents support their delusional buddy due to them having cognitive dissonance issues of their own.

TADM #49

Dennisism #3: Fabricated Quote

This is the third installment that examines words or phrases that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) has rewritten to serve his own purposes. See here for the post in which I explain (in greater detail) what a "Dennisism" is.

In this installment Dennis insists a political cartoon contains a "fabricated quote" because a word balloon that points at former preznit bush contains a sentence never actually spoken by the man. Perhaps Dennis' confusion is understandable given the fact that the image is not a drawing but rather a photoshopped photograph?

I say no. Dennis may be a total moron, but even he should know better. I think the following comment amounts to a LIE, in that Dennis attempts to argue that a photoshopped image features a "fabricated quote".

Dennis Marks: WD... found a rant in a hobby blog, one that contains this fabricated quotation from Bush: "Karl Told me to Feed You Press Boys the Same Crock of Bullsh*t" (6/28/2014 at 9:52pm).

This idiocy from Dennis was in response to me linking to an article that discussed the war profiteering of the bush and Cheney famalies (via The Carlyle Group & Halliburton, respectively) that contained the image below (image #1).

I've included another image that contains a "fabricated quote" (image #2). Did Michelle Obama ever congratulate her husband on the "fake Hawaiian birth certificate" that he had created for him? I doubt it. And if she had I'm sure that it was in private, and NOT in the presence of a photographer!

Is Dennis REALLY failing to recognize that this photoshopped image with a "fabricated quote" is intended as political humor? Is he really THAT DUMB... or is he lying? In my opinion it does not matter. Either he's failing to recognize it as humorous and arguing it contains a "fabricated quote"... or he's telling an incredibly stupid lie.

Whichever is the case Dennis is a f*cking dipshit.

As to what a "fabricate quote" is according to the dictionary authored by Dennis? Obviously it is a quote attributed to someone in a political cartoon/photoshopped image intended to be humorous that Dennis dislikes.

And if such a cartoon is attached to a legitimate article, the dishonest Dennis will attempt to "discredit" the article by pointing to the "fabricated quote".

Image #1: President bush tells the truth about his lying to the American people. A humorous photoshopped image that places words in bush's mouth that he never said (obviously).

Image #2: Michelle Obama looks at a fake Hawaiian birth certificate Barack just handed her and voices her approval in regards to the "awesome" job the forgers did. Why did Michelle allow a photographer to snap this image AND overhear her words (which he jotted down and attached to his photo)? Obviously the quote is FABRICATED!! That, or this might be another image intended as political humor. Who knows? Which conclusion you reach depends on whether or not you are a complete idiot.

TADM #39

Dennisism #2: Backstab

This is the second installment that examines words or phrases that Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) has rewritten to serve his own purposes. See here for the first installment and here for the post in which I explain (in greater detail) what a "Dennisism" is.

Dictionary.com defines "backstab" (verb - used with object), as an "attempt to discredit (a person) by underhanded means, as innuendo, accusation, or the like".

Dennis redefines "backstab" to mean an attempt to discredit a person (him, specifically) by telling the truth about them. Or by quoting him and allowing said quotes to speak for themselves... as this truth-telling blogger does here.

This new definition for "backstab" was used by Dennis in the following comment...

Dennis Marks: [in regard to comments on another blog, that person] is not here to read this. However, this is not the "backstabbing" that [another progressive blogger I hate] and WD engage in: it is a compliment to the man. (3/22/2014 at 1:34pm).

In regards to the other progressive blogger that Dennis hates, I am unsure what "backstabbing" or truth-telling Dennis is referring to. This other blogger does not interact much, if at all, with Dennis. I do know that the "backstabbing" that comes from this blogger that enrages Dennis is my truth-telling about him. The posts on this very blog (as well as others) have caused many tantrums to be thrown by the doofus named Dennis. Although, when the tantrums are thrown on the blogs of Lester Nation or Willis Hart, Dennis is protected by the respective blog proprietors from being called out on his lying.

Hence my truth-telling about Dennis here. It isn't allowed on the two other blogs that Dennis frequents. On those blogs "the management" appreciates (and cheers) the dissembling of the delusional dummy.

TADM #31

Dennisism #1: Dictionary Rewriting & Synonym

Dennis Marks has a, shall we say, "unique" way of looking at the world that differs from that of ordinary people. The purpose of this series of posts is to define what I have decided to call "Dennisisms". They could also be called "dmarkisms", if you prefer (given the fact that dmarks is Dennis' Blogger ID).

If one finds him or herself involved in a conversation with Mr. Marks, confusion regarding this fellow's use of terms might result. You think he's talking about one thing, but you've got it wrong. The reason being that Dennis invents his own definitions and uses his own terminology. Yeah, that tripped me up at first too.

Problem is, this is something that Dennis is not even aware that he's doing. As far as he's concerned, his dictionary rewriting, personal definitions and phraseology is normal. He just makes this stuff up and believes it applies to everyone! Unbelievable, but true.

For this first installment the Dennis re-terminology I am highlighting is "dictionary rewriting", which Dennis may accuse a detractor of if said detractor quotes the dictionary to prove him wrong.

Yes, you got that right... an EXACT dictionary quote - complete with a link to ensure no words have been changed - is "rewriting" according to this delusional doofus.

Dennis last accused me of this when I cited Dictionary.com, which defines a synonym as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another". Dennis' argument is that since "create" and "invent" are synonyms, that Al Gore actually did claim to have invented the internet, as "create" (the word he actually used) is a synonym of "invent".

Obviously Dennis defines synonyms as words that always have EXACTLY the same meaning (Dennis rewrites the dictionary definition by removing the "or nearly the same meaning" portion).

TADM #30

Dennisism: Definition

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks has a, shall we say, "unique" way of looking at the world that differs from that of ordinary people. The purpose of this series of posts is to define what I have decided to call "Dennisisms". They could also be called "dmarkisms", if you prefer.

If one finds him or herself involved in a conversation with Mr. Marks, confusion regarding this fellow's use of terms might result. You think he's talking about one thing, but you've got it wrong. The reason being that Dennis invents his own definitions and uses his own terminology. Yeah, that tripped me up at first too.

Problem is, this is something that Dennis is not even aware that he's doing. As far as he's concerned, his dictionary rewriting, personal definitions and phraseology is normal. He just makes this stuff up and believes it applies to everyone! Unbelievable, but true.

But you'll have to wait for the first installment to see what I'm talking about. Then all shall become clear. And you'll certainly be scratching your head, thinking, how the hell can one person be THIS deluded?

TADM #29