Skip to content

The Psychotic Rants of a ‘Get Hilo’ Statist

June 18, 2011

Someone posted one of my blogs at the ‘Get hilo’ Facebook group. The blog is entitled In Defense of Absolute Rights and

Some Get Hilo peeps are cry-babies...

Some Get Hilo peeps are cry-babies...

Free Speech Against Absolute Ignorance. I never thought that I’d see actual people brandishing, showcasing their absolute ignorance. My pro-absolute rights blog is not merely a critique of a college paper written by a plagiarist; it is a philosophical defense of individual rights and free speech.

I feel sorry for the guy who posted it because he was accused of “picking up a fight.” His unforgivable crime? He merely posted my blog with the message “Good read.” He’s also described as my ‘sockpuppet’ or ‘minion’ or ‘troll’. It’s so sad they can no longer conceal their paranoia.

Ironically, these Get Hilo people advocate “responsible free speech” and criticize what they call “Filipino narcissism” and “egotism”.

I say, look who’s talking! Do these confused statists understand what they’re talking about? Really… again they’re attacking a strawman. And when they talk of “narcissism” and “egotism” they’re simply referring to their ‘collective’ behavior and mentality.

When I skimmed through their Facebook comments on my blog it’s as if I saw a herd of crying babies. Yes, perhaps that’s what these devoted Get Hilo people are. Cry babies. My blogsite was attacked by Get Hilo trolls led by their webmaster and prima donna blogger Benign0 after I posted my pro-free speech blog. It’s fun to know that some people couldn’t just accept constructive, objective criticisms. When they cannot refute your arguments, they go berserk, and that’s what they exactly did! 

But the psychotic comment of a commenter named Nathan- aka Nate Snyder– takes the cake. Here’s what this GRP troll said:

I’m just going to say it at my own expense: Frolian, you’re a jackass and I’m glad idiot savants like you commit heinous crimes and get locked up in prisons with long sentence terms. Lucky for you, i am anti-capital punishment. You are a sociopath on a highway to hell. I have the absolute right to commend you for being a lower life form and making the rest of us look like mental demigods, so enjoy it before you completely de-evolve and slip off the food chain altogether. =)

He also posted the same message on my blog.

Now here’s my reply to this psychotic/sociopath:

I was kinda surprised to learn that this blog is one of the most-read today. Upon reading this hilarious, pathetic, moronic message, there’s this one collective on my mind: the Get Hilo group, which is full of trolls like  Nate Snyder.

Here’s what Nate Snyder wrote: “I’m just going to say it at my own expense: Frolian, you’re a jackass and I’m glad idiot savants like you commit heinous crimes and get locked up in prisons with long sentence terms. Lucky for you, i am anti-capital punishment. You are a sociopath on a highway to hell. I have the absolute right to commend you for being a lower life form and making the rest of us look like mental demigods, so enjoy it before you completely de-evolve and slip off the food chain altogether. =)”

Link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_201091863245952&view=permalink&id=219163811438757

Is that a passage from Hitler’s Mein Kampf? Your comment proves that you’re nothing but a brainless psychotic and sociopath. It’s very ironic that you’re not even aware you’re actually describing yourself. How sad.

That’s exactly how most sick-minded collectivists/statists think. You remind me of Hitler and Stalin… the real sociopaths… like you.

Oh! You also remind me of Ellsworth Toohey, Nate Snyder. You hate me for my individualism and selfishness. But that’s actually a compliment. That deserves nothing but laughter. I’m still waiting for your rebuttal, troll. Please inform your fellow Get Hilo trolls as well.

Yes, you hate me for criticizing a college research paper written by a PLAGIARIST. Did I ever misrepresent the plagiarist’s simplistic views?

By the way, there’s no such thing as animal rights or plant rights. The one who posted that gibberish is an idiot. There’s only individual rights.

Also, tell this Julito Macapagal that biblical passages are now a thing of the past. He’s a deluded mystic. Yes, a mystic. It’s useless to argue with a pastafarian. I suggest the he read the entire blog to get some proper education. Did he ever encounter the term “thought control”? I don’t know, but perhaps that’s what you, sick statists, are trying to advocate.

Finally, it’s amusing to see that you and your comrades are extremely good at attacking a strawman. Perhaps you have mastered the art of context-dropping, misrepresentation, and ad hominem attacks. That’s what most small-minded people do.

The following are the Facebook comments by some devoted Get Hilo people:

    • Nate SnyderFV is still at it eh? I guess banging your head against a brick wall is more fun than it seems.

      13 hours ago · 4 people
    • Ian LopezAbsolute free speech means you have the absolute right to drive a car without your seat belt on and crash at 250 kilometers per hour

      11 hours ago · 5 people
    • Edward GalloBoring! This guy has been a diversion to what the real issue in our country. He can rant all he wants but it won’t change anything, I only understand like 1/4 of what he wrote and didn’t read the rest because it’s boring.

      11 hours ago · 4 people
    • Nate Snyder haha! Edward GalloI didn’t read any of it; i know how angry toddlers manifest their being. Besides I’ve heard all of it before.

      11 hours ago · 4 people
    • Edward Gallo‎@Nate Yeah, can we talk about something else please and leave that guy to his cronies?

      11 hours ago · 2 people
    • Nate SnyderRandroids give me hemorroids.

      11 hours ago · 4 people
    • Julito MacapagalHe is misintrepreting Rand’s ‘absolute rights’ which is ‘within the sphere of his own rights’. Hence there is no such thing as absolute ‘absolute rights’.

      7 hours ago · 5 people
    • Rainier TamayoYou said: “Absolute free speech means you have the absolute right to drive a car without your seat belt on and crash at 250 kilometers per hour”Well, your rights end when other people’s begin.

      6 hours ago
    • Edward GalloLooks like someone’s picking a fight.

      6 hours ago · 4 people
    • Ricardo BlancAwesome command of intellect huh. Now what?

      5 hours ago
    • Timothy López Quezon

      FV is such a pathetic selfish individualist. So animals don’t have the rights? Plants don’t have rights? If man has the “rights”, then why couldn’t we apply it on the animals and plants that we either slaughter or kill everyday? You really …See More
      4 hours ago · 5 people
    • Timothy López QuezonAchieving an egalitarian society where absolute rights exist is highly impossible as long as differences in culture, system, gender treatment and other aspects exist.

      4 hours ago · 3 people
    • Julito MacapagalWait, wait, he has an absolute right to buy an island. Stay there alone to satisfy and experience his absolute rights.

      4 hours ago · 4 people
    • Ron RonquilloStrange ain’t it? He talks about absolute rights, but tends to react when somebody else asserts his “absolute” rights on him.

      3 hours ago · 6 people
    • Chino FernandezI have the absolute right to disagree. hehe

      3 hours ago · 7 people
    • Namikaze MinatoYou nailed that Chino hehehe!

      3 hours ago · 2 people
    • Ron RonquilloThis is the problem. In a democracy, everyone has to exercise and enjoy these rights. It would not be right if we were to deprive anyone while the rest indulges. And of course we know what happens when someone’s absolute right clashes with another’s absolute right.

      3 hours ago · 1 person
    • Nate Snyder

      I’m just going to say it at my own expense: Frolian, you’re a jackass and I’m glad idiot savants like you commit heinous crimes and get locked up in prisons with long sentence terms. Lucky for you, i am anti-capital punishment. You are a sociopath on a highway to hell. I have the absolute right to commend you for being a lower life form and making the rest of us look like mental demigods, so enjoy it before you completely de-evolve and slip off the food chain altogether. =)
      3 hours ago · 3 people
    • Genno SongcayawonHe loves intellectual masturbation isn’t it? LOL

      2 hours ago · 1 person
    • Nate Snyder lol Julito Macapagal

      2 hours ago
    • Ron RonquilloHumor me fellas: And if one asserts his rights in criticizing others and bristles or reacts to those criticizing him, calling them all sorts of names, what does that say about that person?

      about an hour ago · 3 people
    • Ian LopezRon– Absolute [add invective here]

      about an hour ago · 2 people
    • Ian LopezThat was my answer

      about an hour ago
    • Julito Macapagal

      OK, lets analyze one argument in his article, whether this is his or taken from other source: “Free speech has two underlying attributes. The first attribute postulates that man cannot be free if priori restrictions were imposed on him in order to control his thoughts or cognition. Before man can express his views or opinions about any social, political, religious or scientific issues, he must first exercise his freedom of thought”……….What the hell is this?????==> “man cannot be free if priori restrictions were imposed on him in order to control his thoughts or cognition. Before man can express his views or opinions about any social, political, religious or scientific issues, he must first exercise his freedom of thought”. WHO CAN SUPPRESS ANYONE’S FREEDOM OF THOUGHT??? DOES FV BELIEVES IN PSYCHIC POWER? Look what wikipedia has to say about “Freedom of Thought”==>”The obvious impediment to censoring thought is that it is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, and harder to regulate it. Many famous historical works recognize this. The Bible summarizes in Ecclesiastes 8:8: “There is no man that has power over the spirit, to retain it; neither has he power in the day of death.” A similar sentiment is expressed in the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, where he likens those who attempt to control the emotions of their neighbours to “the children in the marketplace” who try to produce dancing with a happy song and mourning with a dirge, and then express frustration at their futility in trying to do so (Matthew 11:16). The concept is developed more specifically in the writings of Paul (“For why should my freedom [eleutheria] be judged by another’s conscience [suneideseos]?” 1 Corinthians 10:29.)”.
      about an hour ago · 3 people
    • Nate SnyderJulito Macapagal, i bid you godspeed as you enter the cave of mental ambiguity to slay the Froi-la dragon. May all the powers of the four winds be at thy back. Forever and ever, RAmen.

      about an hour ago · 3 people
    • Chloe SantiagoThe writer likes using big words just to appear more knowledgeable than the average person. But he fails to convey his message across.

      about an hour ago
    • Edward GalloGenno SongcayawonNo he likes “gay” intellectual masturbation.

      58 minutes ago
    • Ilda Pro

      Here is what Benign0 wrote about Freedom of Speech:***Freedom of speech is a ‘right’: Says WHO exactly?***http://getrealphilippines.blogspot.com/2011/04/freedom-of-speech-is-right-says-who.html“A notion that needs to be challenged: that “freedom of speech” is a “right”? Where exactly did that notion come from? That’s up there with the notion that everyone has the “right” to pursue “happiness”. Is it now? Is everyone entitled to be “happy”? Both of those notions are enshrined in Western philosophy. But just because they are such does not make them absolutes in the natural scheme of things. Both of these are human constructs and it just so happens that we live in societies that have woven these notions into the very fabric of their thinking.No doubt to be “free” and “happy” are nice things to have. But to see them as “rights” is an artificial notion ingrained in our heads by generations of ambient messages — the victory of the “allies” in World War II, the Cold War, wars against “terror” and stuff like that. All noble ideals of course. But artificial constructs just the same. By saying these are absolutes, people frame their thinking using a very small subset of humanity’s vast range of philosophies (in the process progressively imprisoning themsleves into ever convoluted dogmatic frameworks). Western philosophy just happens to be the philosophy we live by. But that does not necessarily mean it is the only one.

      So let us all think carefully before we make any assertions about any “absolutes”. Doing so is the height of intellectual hubris and the mark of wannabe “philosophers” who have swallowed other people’s thinking right off the shelf hook line and sinker.”

      54 minutes ago · 2 people
    • Ron RonquilloI wonder what is the agenda of people like them, given this “I am right, you are wrong” kind of thinking? I thought the agenda of this group and even AP is to identify and criticize the issues of the Philippines and work on promoting what is right.

      49 minutes ago
    • Ilda ProWell, he is not a part of GRP anyway. He’s got his own agenda.

      42 minutes ago
    • Jose Jeremy Seastresand they brand this group GRP “trolls”.irony at its best…..

      41 minutes ago · 4 people

Related Blogs:

Why Did Some “Get Hilo” Peeps Go Berserk?

In Defense of Absolute Rights and Free Speech Against Absolute Ignorance


11 Comments leave one →
  1. lovellespice permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:38

    i see the usual anti-catholic anti-religious but pro-establishment statist trolls are here..! hello guys, nice to see you play the same drivel over and over again.. NOT.

  2. Nathan permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:38

    Oh Froi baby? does this mean our affair is over? hahah …you remind me of a typical anarchist whose only stance is counter (to just about anything), but once you ask for belief, they shut up because they don’t have any. They are completely devoid of any actual stance because they have been so brainwashed that they are soooo special and bucking the “state system” that they haven’t even engaged such a query. In other words, little buddy.. don’t talk to me about plagiarism ‘coz you ain’t original, your BS stance is not original, and Rand is dead and her philosophy, if you can even it call it that, died with her. You don’t have a position worth defending, it’s called BEING CONTRARY. Toddlers can do that on the regular. I’m not impressed. Try harder.

  3. June 18, 2011 3:38

    A plagiarist deserves no benefit of the doubt… Plagiarism is a crime.

    • Joy permalink
      June 19, 2011 3:38

      You know you should use your brain more. Nobody believes Froilan except his minions like you. It’s so obvious why: he uses dirty tactics just to prove a point. And those who believe him have no principles as well. He looks more and more like a pathetic loser nowadays.

      • June 19, 2011 3:38

        I don’t think so. That’s what you’re trying to say because perhaps you’re part of the group. So I’m a ‘minion’ because I agree with the blogger and that the GRP blogger is a proven plagiarist? What a biased assertion. So are you not a minion of that group? If you’re not a minion why not reveal your real identity?

      • Joy permalink
        June 19, 2011 3:38

        @Jen

        Check your facts before making anymore statements because your previous ones are all false.

        First you said plagiarism is a crime when it’s NOT. Second, you said it’s been proven she’s a plagiarist. WRONG again! Where is the proof?!?

        That is why I said, use your brain. Don’t just believe what other people say. Do your own homework. Only minions follow their leader blindly without thinking first.🙂

      • June 19, 2011 3:38

        First, I commented to react to plagiarism which was committed by a GRP blogger. If you call me a ‘minion’ for that, fine. But I think it’s the real ‘minion’ who has the habit of calling others minions just to defend their master. I don’t know but this is the real-world case.
        Second, I read Vincenton’s blog and then checked whether the GRP blogger committed plagiarism. It seems that the GRP blogger made changes already. At least two lines were copied verbatim from this online source http://www.uow.edu.au/~/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html . And it seems that the GRP blogger most/part of her ideas on that source.
        I think it’s you who should use your brain.
        Also, I admire your passion for defending that GRP blogger. Are you the one behind “Joy”.
        FYI, plagiarism is a crime!

      • Joy permalink
        June 19, 2011 3:38

         
        @Jen

        Oh uh, looks like someone is struggling to prove something that’s not even true  :)

        In other words, plagiarism was not committed. It’s so obvious that you guys are starting to look like fools. 

        If plagiarism is a crime and if it has been proven that she committed plagiarism, then she should either be in jail or have been fined by now.

        Your claim does not have any bearing at all. You and your idol just want to continue undermining her by using dirty tactics. Unfortunately for you guys, no one believes your sorry story because other people use their brain.

        I rest my case😉
         
         

  4. June 22, 2011 3:38

    If I may butt in on the issue if plagiarism is a crime, we have this copyright law in our country –

    According to Wiki:

    “Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for fair use of copyrighted material. The criteria for fair use is almost identical to the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law, with the exception that even unpublished works qualify as fair use under Philippine copyright law.”

    There is this news in US just recently – “Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use”

    Snippet:

    “It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.”

    According to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html re: Fair Use Doctrine :

    “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

    The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes:

    – The nature of the copyrighted work
    – The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
    – The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”

    All the case of plagiarisms that I’ve read were actually violation of copyright infringement law.

    I would like to quote this one –

    “Schools enforce plagiarism.
    The courts enforce copyright infringement.”

Trackbacks

  1. A Notice to My Troll-Critics « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Arguing With Welfarist Idiots « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: