Via Radley Balko I find a link to this blog post by Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey, and I realized that this woman has actually left a comment on my blog before. I remember her doing so because she was at the time dating Terrence Chan, a poker player I used to interact with in the poker newsgroup quite a bit. It seems that she broke up with Terrence and announced so on her blog and now is being inundated with men cyber-humping her leg, some of whom she evidently finds undesirable. So she wrote this stunningly self-righteous and arrogant post about how she's a "high quality woman" who has her pick of men, so anyone who isn't GI Joe, Ghandi and Brad Pitt rolled into one might as well stop emailing her. Balko invokes a reference to Stuart Smalley and that seems appropriate. Because she's good enough, she's smart enough, and gosh darn it, men adore her. Get over yourself, lady. You ain't that fucking special.
Oh, let me add one more thing. One of her arguments in favor of her universal desirability is that her picture has been rated higher than 86% of the women on Hotornot. I can't think of anything I would find less desirable in a woman than the fact that they would bother submitting a picture to a webpage like that. If your self-esteem requires being told you're attractive by anonymous horny net geeks with their dicks in their hands, you really need to reevaluate your life.
- Log in to post comments
Man, oh man. Some of those trackbacks are juicy reading. I'm not getting any work done for the rest of today.
But Ed, Her IQ is near Davescot's 150....!
The woman's name is really Jackie Mackie Paisley Passey? Are you sure that's not a pseudonym culled from an obscure Dr. Suess rhyme?
1. My strong suspicion is that she's trying to rebuild her self-esteem-- the list of attributes was more for herself than anybody else.
2.
Dear, anyone with tits will get at least that many responses. You're not special. Secondly, the "whenever" bit makes it sound like she's posted numerous personal ads, which is another signifier of low self-esteem.
3. Why on earth does she think that bragging about herself in such a way is going to decrease the number of men who are going to proposition her? She vastly underestimates the egos of a huge chunk (sometimes literally) of internet-cruising men.
That is too funny, as are some of the comments. I hope she realizes that at 28 she's living on borrowed time. Hell, I even looked ok at 28....
Gretchen wrote:
Certainly true, and it's not limited to the internet. The classic line by Richard Jeni is that no matter how much of a three toed troglodyte a guy is, he thinks he's two or three pushups from being in a hottub with Elle McPherson.
from her bio:
"I first became involved in politics during the 2000 election and from 2001-2002 I worked as the Director of the Libertarian Party of Washington State."
TODAY'S POSER: ED, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HER?
Rich:
I didn't get the idea that she was looking for votes here, other than the hotornot kind. She almost sounds like she'd be fun to stalk, but I don't think I'd waste a good restraining order on her.
Surely you're not suggesting that she has nothing to offer apart from her looks?!
(also 28, better start boning up on the personality quick-like, huh?) ;-)
I'll bet Iranian president Ahmadinejad's blog will zing straight to the top of your blogroll for it's dedication to free speech.
I assume she'll kiboze pretty soon here. When she initially set out (pre Terrence) to find the ideal sex partner and travel pal via her blog I mocked her post and she arrived pretty quickly to attack me while defending herself in the third person. Piece o'fuckin' WORK, that Jackie.
Or, is Ed using reverse psychology to attract her? His photo now appears on the home page. Coincidence?
LOL David. Utterly coincidental, I was just one of the last ScienceBloggers not to have a picture in his profile. I'm overweight, so I obviously don't meet her criteria. And frankly, I think that's a good thing. Any woman who tells men who are interested in her that they're not good enough for her and they should try dating fat single mothers or mail order brides is a first class bitch.
So compared to 14% of women of hotornot.com she's a butt-ugly pooch... and she's bragging about this?
Hey Ed, you might take the size on your pic down a notch. It's looking a little pixelated (at least to my eye).
I second the recommendation for the trackbacks... I found http://longorshortcapital.com/ to be a real hoot (the only blog that pays quarterly cash dividends to its subscribers).
btw, it's Gandhi, not Ghandi. (ack, the internal pedant escaped. sorry.)
Ed, I enjoy your blog very much, and I've never commented before, but this entry bothered me. Surely it's not part of your brief to sneer at a woman with some unfortunate romantic delusions. Take down the intellectually dishonest all you want, but this post smacked of either bitterness or schadenfreude, and either way, it was ugly. You may not have meant it that way -- I hope you didn't -- but your choice of profanities gave the whole post a tinge of misogyny for me. I hope in the future you'll stay away from personal attacks on people not involved in the culture wars.
I find her rather amusing. She's one of those people where at first glance her picture is nice, she's attractive, but as you get to know her (in this case read her grocery list of "why you should want to date me"-isms) she becomes less and less attractive.
If you read her bio ... wowsers...
She met T. Chan online when he responded to her personal ad, they moved in together 2 months later, fell into and out of love, and broke up in 11 months.
Then you have her ex-husband. After 5 weeks together they got married before he decided, in less than a year he was "in her own quotation of his own words ... GAY GAY GAY."
Kind of sad really...
I don't know. If Ed got into this sort of post all the time, it might become a bore, but once in a while to comment on something as obnoxious as this I think is fine.
I mean, to brag about your rating on hotornot.com?
That's pathetic.
Donna wrote:
I would say exactly the same thing if a man had written something that crass and absurd. If a man had said, "I'm a high quality man and all of you overweight losers who want to date me, you've got no shot. You should lower your expectations, maybe find a homeless guy to date or someone with a venereal disease whose standards are lower", I would have blasted him just as hard. That is precisely equivalent to what she wrote, that she's just too good for anyone who isn't perfect and the guys who want her should try fat single mothers or desperate mail order brides instead. This has nothing to do with her "unfortunate romantic delusions" because she's not the one who has them. The poor guys she's insulting are the ones with the unfortunate romantic delusions. It has everything to do with her arrogance, her self-righteousness and her rudeness. Nothing I said had anything whatsoever to do with mysogyny. If anything, the opposite is true. If a man had said what she had said, I suspect you would call that mysogynist, and you might well be right. Blasting a woman for saying the same thing you'd blast a man for saying is not mysogyny, it's being fair-minded and objective.
Thank you, Ed. That link is positively inspiring.
Completely replaced my previous post with this:
Stop your whining you little cry-babies. If you think Jacqueline is too much for you, then she is.
She's not going to change her ways just because it makes you feel bad.
She's not asking for a change in educational policy to substitute her standards for sound scientific education.
She's not calling for a carpet-bombing of Islamic nations.
She's not asking for anyone to do anything but leave her alone!
For my part, I'm happy to do so. I knew her once, liked her and she moved away. I admired her, and thought she was pretty ambitious. Again, if that bugs you, then you are definitely not her type, so stop trying and move on.
Stop trying? Who's trying anything? I couldn't possibly care any less who she does or doesn't find attractive. But if she's going to be an uppity bitch in public, people are probably gonna call her an uppity bitch. I'm one of those people. And I'm not going to change my ways just because it makes you feel bad. So if you don't like it, screw off.
"She's not asking for anyone to do anything but leave her alone!"
okayyyyyy.
hello.
this is my blog.
LEAVE ME ALONE.
0_o
What really bugs me about this whole thread is all the "ditto-heads" that turned up to say how great Ed's post was!
I like every one of Ed's political, legal and anti-anti-evolution posts (except for the amount of time he spends on StACLU - I think one post a year is enough about them).
But this whole thing was just kinda pointless.
So "sad" and "pathetic" apply more to the commentators than to Jacqueline, since no one was compelled to read her post or react to it in any way.
It's disappointing to find so many who profess to believe in libertarian ideas, such as "live and let live," and "don't tread on me," running to join the mob when there's someone to be ridiculed. I would expect people who want -political liberty- to understand that -social liberty- is both its reason and its consequence.
Spike, liberty comes with consequence and accountability. She has every right to make her vainglorious diatribe, we have every right to revel in mocking her.
Spike wrote:
And of course, you weren't compelled to read this post or react to it in any way. Does that make you sad and pathetic too, or is this just special pleading on your part? I think we know the answer to that one. Whether one is compelled to read or react to something is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether their reaction is valid or not. If you say something in public, as she did, people are going to react to it. Some of those reactions may be positive, some may be negative, but the mere fact that no one is compelled to read it or react to it is absolutely irrelevant.
Do you really not recognize how utterly idiotic that statement is? Who here has questioned her liberty to do or say anything she likes? Absolutely no one. That is all political and social liberty means. Liberty does not mean immunity from criticism and ridicule. In fact, liberty virtually guarantees that if you say something - especially something as arrogant and ridiculous as she said - you're going to get criticized for it. Those who criticize someone have the exact same right to speak their mind that the person they are criticizing does. She has an absolute right to be a bitch; I have the same right to call her one when she acts like one. Welcome to reality.
And back at ya! If you're being a whiny pussy, I have every right to call you one when you act like one. Welcome to reality x2!
If you-all really think her post is so gawdawful that you have to spend so much time on it, then what does that say about -your- priorities?
I used to admire you, Ed, but I have to wonder about a guy who even cares enough about what this young lady says to devote a post to it.
She's about half your age and certainly hasn't had to learn the life lessons you and I have gone through. But she can certainly take a little dissent better than -you- can.
Is this all that liberty means? A bunch of whiners throwing insults at person who likes herself more than they think she should?
lib·er·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
(1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
(2)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
(3)A bunch of whiners throwing insults at person who likes herself more than they think she should.
(4)The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
(5)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
(6)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore
For my own part: If I did not know her, at least in the past, I would have clicked right through this post. But when I met her, I saw some of my former self in her.
I used to have "quality standards" and thought myself quite the catch - and went from one messed up relationship to another.
If I had the same access to the web 20 some years ago, I'd probably have a similar blog.
But, fortunately for me, I met a really wonderful woman who was nothing like what I thought my "standards" were (better, actually) and we're very, very happy. I didn't settle, I grew up.
So, I feel some sympathy for her plight, and know she will also grow out of it. At least, I hope she will. But I don't see any use or advantage in whining about her blog.
Rich,
You funny!
Spike wrote:
And if you could make anything like a coherent and consistent argument for your position, that might mean something. But let's take a look at just how stupid your arguments have been so far:
No one here is either whining or crying, they are criticizing. There's a significant difference. And no one has said anything at all to indicate that they think this woman is "too much for them" (whatever the hell that might mean). She's being criticized for her arrogance and her rudeness, and rightfully so.
Completely irrelevant. I couldn't care less if she changes her ways, and my criticism has nothing at all to do with making me feel bad. Her post didn't make me feel bad, it made me laugh at how idiotic and ridiculous it was. And of course, this argument applies just as well to yours - I'm not going to change my ways just because you get your panties in a bunch either, but that didn't stop you from saying what you said, did it? So this argument is meaningless and irrelevant.
Utter nonsense. If she just wanted to be left alone she would have said, "I'm not interested in dating anyone, so everyone please stop emailing me to strike up a relationship." But she didn't stop there, she went on to declare that she's so much better than the people hitting on her and those poor pathetic losers should try fat single mothers or mail order brides instead. If you can't see how unfuckingbelievably arrogant and rude that is, you must have the mind of a gnat.
Stop trying what? Even if I was available (and I'm not), I didn't have any interest in her before she revealed what a self-righteous bitch she is, much less after. No one here is trying anything to need to move on from. So again, a completely irrelevant and meaningless argument.
Now let's look at some of your new ones:
You keep ducking into the same punch. If this is a valid argument, does it not apply even more to your priorities? If you really think this post is so awful that you have to spend so much time on it, then what does that say about you? I don't think it says much of anything about you. The fact that you keep making ungodly bad arguments, however, speaks volumes.
She's about half my age? Where did you learn your math, from Billy Bob's Mathematics School and Bait Shop? According to her bio, she's 28; I'm 38. She would need to be 9 years younger to be half my age. And you'd have a much easier time selling the "you're picking on a poor naive young lady" angle if she hadn't arrogantly declared herself to be so much smarter, better educated and accomplished than everyone else. She's an educated, intelligent adult who publicly declared herself to be Helen of Troy, Joan of Arc and Cindy Crawford rolled into one. She's gonna take a lot of shit for that because she damn well deserves to take a lot of shit for it.
You're only 38? Who would've guessed it from the photo?
As I mentioned, but you ignored, if I didn't know her, I would have gone right past this.
Some folks do take longer to learn life's lessons.
Like you, for instance. Other than repeating that becuase she wrote a post you didn't like, you feel the right to whine about it, you really haven't said anything about why you even needed to write this thread.
I have a personal interest in her case, having known her when I was part of the LPWA.
What is it about -this- post that got you so hot and bothered, as opposed to all the other absolute dreck out there on the web?
We could probably find thousands of blogs wherein the authors descibe their excessive attributes and why everyone should fall at their feet, but you never wrote about them (at least as long as I have been reading your stuff).
It's not like she's "Parish Hilton" or some celebrity (beyond her little blog fan base).
I don't understand what it is about this one lady's silly post that got you (and your minions) so bent out of shape.
Spike, your teh one who's keeping this thread you're not interested in going. Perhpas if you did not know her you'd find her funny. I find you funny, but if I knew you I'd be sad.
Rich,
As I said, if I didn't know her, I wouldn't even have looked. What bugs me is that Ed, whom I used to think very highly of, even spent time on this whole episode.
What's that internet theory about calling the other guy a Nazi is the sure sign of dead thread?
The corollary should be that when the posters start calling the other guy "sad" you know they've run out of steam.
Me, too.
I called myself 'sad', hypothetically. I think we all agree she perhaps is still to acquire some virtuous qualities. Perhaps this episode will let her re-evaluate and change is she wishes. Regardless, as of right now she is one hilarious, vainglorious biatch. Let's compare this to say, for example, Starwarskid. That was unfortunate because the video was never meant to be in the public domain. But Miss smartypants has a blog and crafts her own message - so fair game says I.
The fact that you know her and like her doesn't make her behavior any less arrogant, self-righteous, rude or absurd. I make fun of people saying stupid things all the time on this blog; this time I happened to do it to someone you like. But since that has nothing to do with whether the criticism is deserved or not, you are forced to come up with all these stupid arguments for why I shouldn't have said anything about it. You can't defend the behavior. You can't come up with a single reason why anything I said in response is unwarranted or unjustified. So all of this is just special pleading on your part - "don't pick on anyone I happen to like". Well sorry, it's my blog and I'll criticize those that I think deserve it and I don't need your permission to do so. If that means you no longer respect me, I think I'll manage to survive the disappointment. The only reason I bothered to mention this is because A) I saw a link to it and B) she had commented here before and I remembered that because she was dating someone I respected from interacting with him years ago. The fact that there's a lot of other stupid shit on blogs to criticize is - stop me if you've heard this before - completely meaningless and irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with whether what I said is true and justified, and that's all that really matters.
Spike, you confuse hilarity with dispair, and incredulity with disappointment. We are not humbled or brought down by the blog entry of Ms. MPP-- it is simply the joke of the day. Nobody expects her to change; nobody expects her to care what we say. We are simply having a laugh at her expense because her bragging is so unbecoming and ridiculous. And hey, that is what liberty is all about-- she is free to have a laugh at us, if she so chooses.
Despair, excuse me. I could not have anyone mocking me for my poor spelling. ;-)
AHHAHAHAHAH!!! She really thinks that post is going to attract men? I read through the first few sentences and then just closed the browser out of boredom! She's so smart, she MUST know that men looking for a date aren't going to want to read your life's story. They want to see some of the good qualities, not statistics.
And there's plenty of girls just in my hometown much hotter than her but without the snobby bitchishnish.
IlDayo: What's the proper usage of that new word? If someone gets busted in your hometown, does he/she claim the "Bitchishnish set me up"?
If we are to take her at face value*, no. That post was supposed to repel men; men who didn't make her cut.
* I am not convinced that this is the appropriate interpretation.
Jackiemackie Paisleypassey, despite her high-maintenance bearing and claims of pulchritude, is very ordinary in appearance. She looks like a hybrid of Molly Shannon and Ann Coulter. I'd gladly date one of the three women I just mentioned; the other two I'd just as gladly grace with pants-free bursts of intensely sulfuric flatulence directed due mouthward. Can you guess which one I consider the best catch?
Ed,
I acknowledge your right to stamp your foot, stick out your lower lip and be as petulant as you wish. I never said you couldn't.
But what I wonder about is this: If she's arrogant and vainglorious (and I don't dsipute the fact that her post makes her seem so), what do -you- (or any of the rest of these yahoos who had to jump on the bandwagon) personally gain by making a fuss about it?
If she's 'teched, how does mocking her insanity make -you- a better man?
What planet are you from? That's about how incomprehensible I find your comments. Why do you insist that other people are ashamed, childish, petulant, whatever....simply because they find JMPP's blog post ridiculous? Are you just unable to take people at their word, and have to make up some other motivation?
A laugh. As you've been told, repeatedly. And laughing together does not equate to "a fuss." You persist on seeing consternation when none is present.
I don't know. Does laughing at any joke make one a better man? Is that the purpose of a joke?
Maybe Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey will have better luck here:
Online dating is planned for orangutans
But what I wonder about is this: If she's arrogant and vainglorious (and I don't dsipute the fact that her post makes her seem so), what do -you- (or any of the rest of these yahoos who had to jump on the bandwagon) personally gain by making a fuss about it?
Rudolf Steiner once said: "For our cognition, the concept of the tree is conditioned by the percept of the tree. When faced with a particular percept, I can select only one particular concept from the general system of concepts." Sometimes it is difficult for us to pluck the most appropriate concept from out of that great tree of the general system of concepts. In this case, when you ask what does anyone have to personally gain from all of this: I'm sorry to say that you have plucked the concept of egoism from out of the thin blue air. Instead, you should have chosen the concept of altruism. It's not about personal gain -- it's about the intellectual advancement of all humanity.
If she's 'teched, how does mocking her insanity make -you- a better man?
It's not about making a better man. It's about making a better world for you and me.
"You still think you're the cutest trick in shoe leather." -- Rhett Butler
Spike wrote:
The only one being petulant here is you. You're still struggling mightily to come up with some coherent, objective reason why I shouldn't have criticized what she wrote, but the truth is that your objection is purely personal and subjective - you know her and like her and therefore how dare I criticize her? But the fact is that I criticize people for absurd claims and absurd behavior many times here every day, and not once before have you ever demanded to know what I gain from it, or called those who agree with me - which, by your own admission, would include yourself most of the time - "yahoos" and other choice words. Never before have you declared that I am "sad and pathetic" because I wasn't "compelled" to read and react to what I'm reading and reacting to. The only difference between every other post where I criticize someone and this post is that you have a personal, subjective reaction to it. Yet you're trying to make objective arguments to justify that reaction and you're failing miserably and, quite frankly, making yourself look quite foolish.
Every single post I write is bound to anger someone because they like the person being criticized. Gribbit and DaveScot both have friends and families who care about them too, but that doesn't mean that their subjective anger at my daring to criticize someone they like is any less valid or justified. You can't even begin to make an objective defense of what she wrote, nor can you even begin to argue that what I said isn't a perfectly justified response to it. And if you can't do that, then your subjective and irrational emotional response is just as irrelevant as Gribbit's mother and DaveScot's children if they were to see my criticisms of someone they care about.
Has anyone actually seen non glamour shots of her?
She's actually BELOW average looking. With make up and made up she's probably around average to a very small bit above. With the glamour shots sure, she's attractive, but everyone looks good in glamour shots.
Spike,
I believe a number of us read the post because we were curious about what Ed had to say. As we read further our curiousity grew. I seriously doubt more than a tiny percentage of the readers were folks who gave a rats fuzzy behind about whether or not they "measured up" to miss Helen of Crawford (good one Ed).
I personally posted because, while she may come off as brash, arrogant, and self assured, I think she questions herself a lot more than she would like to admit. Who the hell posts their IQ? "Mine is higher than yours is neener neener!" After that I kept reading because your argument with Ed is, to repeat a word I've used before on this thread, amusing.
I dunno, if I were a woman trying to get rid of annoying internet suitors, the last thing I would publicly announce would be:
"I have a strong libido and love having sex (my lover *never* has to beg, unless it's for me to let him get some sleep!)"
That kind of stuff is sure to get every drooling geek out there fantasizing about her.
Unless, of course...
Valid point Amanda, perhaps starved for attention as well?
"Has anyone actually seen non glamour shots of her?
"She's actually BELOW average looking."
Yeah, I gotta say the woman's bloated opinion of her looks is distinctly unwarranted.
http://jacquelinepassey.blogs.com/photos/misc/cimg0343.JPG
Lots of shots of her in the sidebar here:
http://jacquelinepassey.blogs.com/blog/atheist/index.html
Re: Spike
DNFTEC
usually , women will pick mates two or three stations above her (looks, money , power etc etc ) this girl becomes even less attractive with her rant .
the whole reason she posted what she did was to seek attention regardless of her claim . Again Ed was right on the money .
That seems to be the case Vic. In a follow-up post, she makes it clear that at least one of the reasons she posted what she did was to stir things up as her visitor and comment counts were declining. In other words, she deliberately courted the "fuss" that Spike complains about above to lure readers, presumable in the hope that some will continue to read her usual missives after the ruckus dies down.
Another reason offered was to shoo away pestering would-be Romeo's. I'm not so sure telling everyone what a fine catch she is and that she's out of their league is the way to do that. I never heard of the woman before now, and don't see any particular reason to read her blog based on this episode.
Note: I have to say, I never seen so many categories in any other blog before. I tried to count them all, but gave up after 300, when I wasn't even at the half-way mark of the alphabet.
Is there an address where I can send JMPP one of these?
Looks like Something Awful has picked up on the scent.