Billy Mays, was your claim true or just hyperbole?

by **The Happiness Engine** » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:36 pm

I am SO SORRY. Clearly, I should have known that Paul's response would be to post the entire creepy thing here (making that a 4th repetition of a terrible idea) and subject even those who didn't want to know to it.

I'll try to be more careful in the future.

by **Tdarcos** » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:11 am

Billy Mays wrote: This is not how normal brained people think.

Okay, explain it to me. Show me where my thinking processes are incorrect. This is the thing I keep asking people, what are your objective, quantifiable reasons that you claim I think in an unusual fashion or in an abnormal one.

A woman considers her sexuality as part of her existence, and who she decides she is willing to share that with shows a huge part of her psychological makeup. And how she is seen by others is part of that. In our world it's considered unacceptable for women to be sexually aggressive in the same way that is tolerated for men. This is referred to as a "double standard."

Now am I wrong on these points?

Now, this tends to change a bit, going back at least 200 years, on about a 20-year cycle. Things get "loose" or more open, and women (and men) have a bit more freedom to explore their sexuality in casual sex and such things. But, after a while that becomes unsatisfying and less "looseness" or openness in sexuality occurs, which lasts about 20 years, then that becomes too "tight" or closed, and things start to swing back to more loose standards. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This we can see in our own recent history. The 1920s-1940s were more loose, the 1940s-1960s were less, the 1960s-1980s were more open, the 1980s-2000s were less, and from 2000 things got more open.

But excluding the changes in social mores a woman expresses her sexuality by whom she chooses to share it with. But women have issues. First they usually want to be treated properly by the man they're with, and they have fears of risks to intimacy: Being emotionally hurt by someone; being (non-sexually) assaulted; being injured; being infected by an STI or STD; getting pregnant. Plus potential baggage from other relationships.

Now, change the situation where this woman is dead, knows she is, and is existing in an afterlife where the rules around her essentially look like magic. There is a means available where someone else can't injure you. You can't get pregnant and can't get social diseases. Society is in the "open" state where nobody cares what you do with other people or how many you see. A man can't get pleasure out of you unless you agree, so rape is going to be very rare.

Given this, it is going to change the way human sexual interactions occur. The 1960s showed what happened when women were liberated from the threat of unwanted pregnancy through good contraception and the near elimination of the dangers from STDs and STIs.

So what I try to show what would be the result. Women would become more like men on earth now, where they can choose to be open with their sexuality and enjoy it since there's effectively no consequences for having casual sex with other people, as it effectively was back in the 1960s on earth. And has been in some societies on earth before.

So the way people interact is going to change, and the way I think people are going to act is what I show in my story. The conditions are different there and people will act differently.

Your typical young lady of 1967 is going to act in dating situations in ways that would be considered scandalous for 1957 and would probably be a little too open for 1987. And young people today - boys and girls - are acting in ways that in 1996 might have been somewhat unacceptable then.

I think that human beings, being sexual beings, would be extremely interested in that absent the general social mores that otherwise restrict this behavior and their own interests, with the general restrictions caused by the risks of sexual activity. Where the mores have opened and the restrictions became less of a problem, human beings have tended to have more sexual interactions with others.

Any examination of summer at places where young people are known to go for guilt-free hookups, like Ft. Lauderdale, proves this to be the case.

Now if you think I've completely misunderstood people then I invite you to explain why I'm wrong.

by **pinback** » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:26 am

Do we-- I think we have to call someone now?

by **Billy Mays** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:36 pm

Tdarcos wrote: I do. And your comments indicate that either you did not read the story or you did not understand it.

Now perhaps I did not make this clear by the time 246 sees his new boss for the first time, but the Welcoming Department is the equivalent of what Beetlejuice goes to in that movie: a whorehouse for the dead.

In that society, people volunteer to become Welcomers, where they meet the freshly dead, show them a video of the world they are in, then offer to make love with them. Now, they offer this to incoming men and women because they are the type of person who likes having fun sex with new people.

They already like doing this. They decide from the people who just died whom they pick. They have immunity from assault so there is no way the incoming can hurt them. You can't catch any venereal disease and if you're a woman you can't get pregnant. And sex is much more pleasurable than on earth.

The female Welcomer meeting an incoming from earth is on the order of a woman who is interested in one-night-stands or short-term liaisons who on earth would be at a bar, sees a guy who looks attractive, and decides to take him home with her.

Can she be raped? Yes, but it is not the same as earth. He has no capacity to injure or hurt her, and he won't get any pleasure out of her unless she lets him. As it was pointed out, the guy assaulted her from the moment he got in the room. Now, she was willing to go to bed with him anyway but he acted on her too fast. As I point out in the story, before she can even react, she feels funny and starts coming because of a protective system. Also, the man cannot orgasm - and she knows this - until she decides to allow him to do so.

Now, at that point, he hasn't hurt her at all other than startled her a little, she knows he isn't feeling any pleasure, and she's coming regularly. Now, she was there specifically with the intent of having sex with the guy which would have lead to her having orgasms, so rather than throw the alarm, since that was why she was there, she decides that it doesn't hurt and fells good, why not just let the stupid fool keep doing that since he's not going to get anything out of it. But she is.

This is not the same as an untrained, unprotected ordinary woman being attacked, this was a woman who is interested in casual encounters who knows she has strong protection against injury. This is a woman who is emotionally prepared that this might happen, and physically protected from injury.

The women who do this for the Welcoming Department know that the men they decide to take back to their room for sex cannot, in any fashion hurt them, cannot get pleasure without her permission, and thus the man has no power over her at all.

Consider this, some guy tries to hit you with a 2x4. You'll probably be scared he'll hurt you, may be angry. But what if it's a pool noodle, are you going to get mad? Probably not.

Now let's make it sexual. He wants to sodomize you, or use a strap on on you. You'd probably be scared and angry. Now, if it was a soft bar of butter you probably wouldn't let him but you probably would not be frightened because the threat is not serious.

Now, if some woman jumped him he might change his mind and not want her riding him, but I suspect his level of distaste would be less than the inverse, a woman who found a guy interesting but he decided to assault her before she was ready.

As it points out later in the book some ordinary women not so protected are traumatized by rape. Thus I do understand the difference and the psychology of rape. Apparently either you didn't read this or I did not make this clear although I thought I did.

This is not how normal brained people think.

by **Tdarcos** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:40 pm

The Happiness Engine wrote:It was over a year ago, I really had nothing useful to tell you about it, and after chapter 1 you're SO PLEASED with your TERRIBLE idea that you have the character re-tell the story in chapter 4 and then have THAT character re-tell the now third-hand story in chapter 7 or 11.

Spoilers for anyone who wants to keep their sanity: it involves Paul not understanding the psychology of rape in some very disturbing ways.

I do. And your comments indicate that either you did not read the story or you did not understand it.

Now perhaps I did not make this clear by the time 246 sees his new boss for the first time, but the Welcoming Department is the equivalent of what Beetlejuice goes to in that movie: a whorehouse for the dead.

In that society, people volunteer to become Welcomers, where they meet the freshly dead, show them a video of the world they are in, then offer to make love with them. Now, they offer this to incoming men and women because they are the type of person who likes having fun sex with new people.

They already like doing this. They decide from the people who just died whom they pick. They have immunity from assault so there is no way the incoming can hurt them. You can't catch any venereal disease and if you're a woman you can't get pregnant. And sex is much more pleasurable than on earth.

The female Welcomer meeting an incoming from earth is on the order of a woman who is interested in one-night-stands or short-term liaisons who on earth would be at a bar, sees a guy who looks attractive, and decides to take him home with her.

Can she be raped? Yes, but it is not the same as earth. He has no capacity to injure or hurt her, and he won't get any pleasure out of her unless she lets him. As it was pointed out, the guy assaulted her from the moment he got in the room. Now, she was willing to go to bed with him anyway but he acted on her too fast. As I point out in the story, before she can even react, she feels funny and starts coming because of a protective system. Also, the man cannot orgasm - and she knows this - until she decides to allow him to do so.

Now, at that point, he hasn't hurt her at all other than startled her a little, she knows he isn't feeling any pleasure, and she's coming regularly. Now, she was there specifically with the intent of having sex with the guy which would have lead to her having orgasms, so rather than throw the alarm, since that was why she was there, she decides that it doesn't hurt and fells good, why not just let the stupid fool keep doing that since he's not going to get anything out of it. But she is.

This is not the same as an untrained, unprotected ordinary woman being attacked, this was a woman who is interested in casual encounters who knows she has strong protection against injury. This is a woman who is emotionally prepared that this might happen, and physically protected from injury.

The women who do this for the Welcoming Department know that the men they decide to take back to their room for sex cannot, in any fashion hurt them, cannot get pleasure without her permission, and thus the man has no power over her at all.

Consider this, some guy tries to hit you with a 2x4. You'll probably be scared he'll hurt you, may be angry. But what if it's a pool noodle, are you going to get mad? Probably not.

Now let's make it sexual. He wants to sodomize you, or use a strap on on you. You'd probably be scared and angry. Now, if it was a soft bar of butter you probably wouldn't let him but you probably would not be frightened because the threat is not serious.

Now, if some woman jumped him he might change his mind and not want her riding him, but I suspect his level of distaste would be less than the inverse, a woman who found a guy interesting but he decided to assault her before she was ready.

As it points out later in the book some ordinary women not so protected are traumatized by rape. Thus I do understand the difference and the psychology of rape. Apparently either you didn't read this or I did not make this clear although I thought I did.

by **The Happiness Engine** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:55 pm

Tdarcos wrote:I wonder exactly when this alleged reading took place and why, if it was more than, say, two weeks or a month ago you said nothing to me. And would you please explain to me as to how a story about someone caught with their pants down on a bed was repeated twice?

It was over a year ago, I really had nothing useful to tell you about it, and after chapter 1 you're SO PLEASED with your TERRIBLE idea that you have the character re-tell the story in chapter 4 and then have THAT character re-tell the now third-hand story in chapter 7 or 11.

Spoilers for anyone who wants to keep their sanity: it involves Paul not understanding the psychology of rape in some very disturbing ways.

The Happiness Engine wrote:And of course you were unaware that I would think this meant my work was bad, rather than standard practice. A book submission other than by the writer's agent will be returned unopened if they know it's a book submission, returned unread if sufficient postage is included, or discarded unread if not.

No publishing company other than vanity presses accept unagented submissions. There is no slush pile and hasn't been one since probably the 1980s. Publishers only want to deal with works from an agent.

So since you are not a literary agent, of course they refused to accept a submission from you.

I know a published writer who has professional contacts. We both agreed this 'novel' was so amusing that we would troll our friends with it. IIRC the editor looked at the amount of front matter and refused to even be mentally scarred by the story. At no point was ANYONE attempting to sell or publish this, much like I would not attempt to publish a car crash.

Billy Mays wrote:If I had to speculate, I would say that these published authors and the Hugo nominee are at the very least good acquaintances with The Happiness Engine where some insider action could take place if there was any merit to your book on a commercial level.

...and this is why we still only have one verified autist here.

by **pinback** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:07 pm

Hey, if y'all think you could do better, I'd love to read YOUR books.

Don't listen to 'em, Paul. Your unreadable encyclopedia-sized tomes are literary treasures.

by **Billy Mays** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:33 pm

Tdarcos wrote:So since you are not a literary agent, of course they refused to accept a submission from you.

If I had to speculate, I would say that these published authors and the Hugo nominee are at the very least good acquaintances with The Happiness Engine where some insider action could take place if there was any merit to your book on a commercial level.

by **Tdarcos** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:58 am

The Happiness Engine wrote: Motherfucker, I not only struggled through to page 342, by which time chapter one had been repeated twice more,

I wonder exactly when this alleged reading took place and why, if it was more than, say, two weeks or a month ago you said nothing to me. And would you please explain to me as to how a story about someone caught with their pants down on a bed was repeated twice?

The Happiness Engine wrote: I also placed this...object in front of numerous published writers, including a Hugo nominated editor, who flatly refused to touch it.

And of course you were unaware that I would think this meant my work was bad, rather than standard practice. A book submission other than by the writer's agent will be returned unopened if they know it's a book submission, returned unread if sufficient postage is included, or discarded unread if not.

No publishing company other than vanity presses accept unagented submissions. There is no slush pile and hasn't been one since probably the 1980s. Publishers only want to deal with works from an agent.

So since you are not a literary agent, of course they refused to accept a submission from you.

Presuming this even happened and this is not complete, utter bullshit.

by **Billy Mays** » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:59 am

Tdarcos wrote:That you're all assholes who wrongly pick on me?

I couldn't agree with you more Paul. These assholes have no right to pick on you for whatever weird brain conditions this book clearly demonstrates you as having.

by **The Happiness Engine** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:00 am

Tdarcos wrote: Why? What are you afraid of? That he'll learn I'm a good writer? That I don't have autism? That I don't have Asperger's syndrome? That you're all assholes who wrongly pick on me?

A general note: "In the Matter of: Instrument of God", a 'novel' by Paul Robinson, is 798 pages long, of which 42 are front matter.

But if my words are bad or they demonstrate my faults then you should very much want him to read them. No spin-doctoring by me can cover up the power of my own words.

While an amazing piece of outsider art, no one should have to suffer that much.

Or are you a hypocrite who has not read any of my stories and based upon your lack of knowledge you proceed to tell him he should not read it because you haven't?

Motherfucker, I not only struggled through to page 342, by which time chapter one had been repeated twice more, I also placed this...object in front of numerous published writers, including a Hugo nominated editor, who flatly refused to touch it.

by **Tdarcos** » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:45 am

The Happiness Engine wrote:For the love of god, speaking as the world's foremost expert of Taco-ology, DO NOT attempt to read any of Paul's "books".

Why? What are you afraid of? That he'll learn I'm a good writer? That I don't have autism? That I don't have Asperger's syndrome? That you're all assholes who wrongly pick on me?

If my words are right and true then you have every reason to fear them.

But if my words are bad or they demonstrate my faults then you should very much want him to read them. No spin-doctoring by me can cover up the power of my own words.

I will say this, as an example. As an atheist, I strongly encourage people to read the Bible in order to know what it says; most religious people have done little to no reading of the Bible. Penn Gillette said it precisely: only by reading the Bible will you actually realize just how batshit crazy it is.

I can't hide from my words and I think they provide a true portrait of me. If you disagree, show from what I have said what is wrong.

Or are you a hypocrite who has not read any of my stories and based upon your lack of knowledge you proceed to tell him he should not read it because you haven't?

by **The Happiness Engine** » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:23 pm

For the love of god, speaking as the world's foremost expert of Taco-ology, DO NOT attempt to read any of Paul's "books".

by **Throwing up now** » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:58 pm

Billy Mays wrote:I don't hate you either Paul, I am honestly sick to death about all of the shit that I posted towards you . . . and then I saw how sweet you are on the youtube video you posted, and I have been literally throwing up every time I look into a mirror since.

Jesus christ you two, why don't you get a fucking room already.

by **Billy Mays** » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:22 pm

Tdarcos wrote: I'm kind of curious because I think you made two claims, first that nobody here reads what you have to say,

People obviously read what I have to say based on all of the comments.

Tdarcos wrote:and that essentially you replicate hate toward everyone here because they all feel the same way.

I don't hate anybody in the world, I'm not a hateful person.

Tdarcos wrote:So I'm wondering if this is how you actually feel or is it just hyperbole and exaggeration?

hyperbole.

Tdarcos wrote:Because I'd like to say something here. First, I don't hate you and have never hated you.

I don't hate you either Paul, I am honestly sick to death about all of the shit that I posted towards you (not anybody else here, I found all of that very funny). It was meant to be friendly ball busting, and then I saw how sweet you are on the youtube video you posted, and I have been literally throwing up every time I look into a mirror since. I even tried busting your chops a few times after that youtube video and it just made me feel dirty.

Tdarcos wrote:About your only failing was that while you were able to drive pinback away, it was not perfect, he didn't stay away.

I didn't anticipate him leaving for more than a few days, I thought five days was a bit of an accomplishment all things considered. Pinback can't leave, none of us can.

Tdarcos wrote:But, for someone who's been here only a few weeks it was a pretty good first try.

I've been holding back on the overwhelming majority of my full potential to enrage and annoy people because Robb wouldn't have stood for it, and because this place would have been kind of shit without pinback.

Tdarcos wrote:Now, if you really want to understand me, read a little of my second book, Instrument of God... You can download that book, which is a 3 megabyte PDF, 740 pages, from http://paul-robinson.us/instrument.pdf and if you read some of the stories, you might learn something about me.

Thank you, I am looking forward to reading it.

by **Tdarcos** » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:08 am

I'm kind of curious because I think you made two claims, first that nobody here reads what you have to say, and that essentially you replicate hate toward everyone here because they all feel the same way.

So I'm wondering if this is how you actually feel or is it just hyperbole and exaggeration?

Because I'd like to say something here. First, I don't hate you and have never hated you. The worst I ever felt was a little miffed once because one time you said something I felt was a bit too personal and wasn't the usual more playful "busting my balls" type of humor you normally did, and needed to "walk it back" or "dial it back" a little to return to the fun teasing sort of insults, like Don Rickles, not sneering like Donald Trump to Rosie O'Donnell.

Second, I do listen to what you say, and sometimes I have no comment because I'm not interested in the subject.

About your only failing was that while you were able to drive pinback away, it was not perfect, he didn't stay away.

But, for someone who's been here only a few weeks it was a pretty good first try.

Now, if you really want to understand me, read a little of my second book, Instrument of God, say the first story about the rapist, which takes about 38 pages, starting on page 1, or the incident where 246 swindles his own boss, from pages 86-101, you can see Supervisor 246 who is essentially an avatar of me only a little more snarky and a bit more self-confident.

You can download that book, which is a 3 megabyte PDF, 740 pages, from http://paul-robinson.us/instrument.pdf and if you read some of the stories, you might learn something about me.

Billy Mays, was your claim true or just hyperbole?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Billy Mays, was your claim true or just hyperbole?

Re: Billy Mays, was your claim true or just hyperbole?

Re: Billy Mays, was your claim true or just hyperbole?

Billy Mays, was your claim true or just hyperbole?