The very overdue pitting of Susanann

[Ace309]

@MOIDALIZE

If I’m not mistaken, I believe she once insisted that the reason the Nazis never invaded Switzerland was because Switzerland had a policy of no surrender, which supposedly made the prospect of fighting them in a war an ordeal too terrible to contemplate. Not the mountains or the overwhelming lack of strategic purpose for such an invasion. Nope, it was Swiss super-soldiers (and their very fancy bayonets).

Yeah, she’s often convinced that something is the ONLY!!! reason something else could have occurred. It’s a pattern of reasoning you see a lot from stupid people.

[Starving_Artist]

@ladyfoxfyre

Concurrently, we have her valiant efforts to solve the debt crisis. See, the solution is just to stop spending.

I feel compelled to point out that Susanann did not say “Stop spending”, she said “Reduce spending”.

[Kolga]

@rachelellogram

Here, I found it. Post three of this thread.

:eek:

Wow.

Yea, like a poster in that thread stated, that sounds like a number of the people with schizophrenia that I worked with as a clinician and researcher.

[Bosstone]

@Starving_Artist

I feel compelled to point out that Susanann did not say “Stop spending”, she said “Reduce spending”.

This post utterly fails to surprise me.

[Yllaria]

My first rolleyes moment was in one of the Casey Anthonythreads, where she insisted, repeatedly:

Actually, everything fits ALL THE TIME!!! if you have the truth, it has to , because the truth always fits. There are no loose ends when you have the true story. There are no inconsistencies when you have the truth. There are no contradictions when you have the truth.

After that, I just assumed that her need to be 100% sure was always going to interfere with her perceptions of the topic. Sadly, it seems to interfere with her perceptions of a lot of things.

Oh, does she always not trust cops, or was that just part of not trusting George?

[John_Mace]

@rachelellogram

There was a thread recently in GQ where she said Isaac Asimov had stolen the “every mammal lives to a billion heartbeats” theory from her, back in the '60s or '70s.

I’ve had her on ignore since she appeared, but I’ll almost always take a peek at her posts anyway. They’re so damn good, they just HAVE to be fattening.

Here, I found it. Post three of this thread.

Yes, that raised a few eyebrows, to say the least.

This was one of my favorites:

@susanann

@Colibri

Basically, this. We know that our closest living relatives, chimps, have more well developed hair than we do. We assume that our common ancestor was also hairy. Since our relative hairlessness is probably an adaptation to shedding heat in pursuit hunting in savannas, it probably arose at some point after we split off from chimps. .

Actually, just the opposite.

The first humans were hairless. Ditto for the first Chimps.

In evolution, the first creature necessarily is hairless, bc the development of hair is a reaction or a response to the environment. Hair, fur, feathers, evolved later, probably evolved when the creatures migrated to cooler climates. The creatures with hair, feathers , fur, more hair, more feathers, more fur survived better at some point in time.

Ditto for the very first cell/spark of life to be created on Earth, the first bird, the first frog, the first puppy, etc were all t also hairless in the earliest stages of evolution.

[chiroptera]

I’ve read a few of Susanann’s thread and she’s a tad obsessed. So what?
However, ladyfoxfyre…you are a fucking weirdo! I can’t imagine caring enough about what someone else says online to spend the amount of time you did saving and quoting everything whatsername said.

Seriously, some of you people are really pathetic, with your obsession about anonymous strangers. It’s people like you creepy no-life voyeuristic motherfuckers that make me hesitant to share much online. I imagine people like ladyfoxfyre and you others as Jabba the Hutt…fat, ugly, friendless in real life, no social skills, no jobs, no hobbies except huddling in solitary in front of your monitors and obsessing about other online personas.

I’m so glad that I am an occasional visitor and not one of you basement dwelling, scary losers. I have work and a life and friends in real life, unlike ladyfoxfyre with her faux-mystikal handle. :rolleyes:

@ladyfoxfyre

Susanann is our resident expert on all kinds of things, from the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, to the Casey Anthony murder trial, to the solution to the national debt problem, to the eternal question of what happens to animals in the circus.

In this thread, one poster asks how bad the circus actually is for the animals involved. The answer? Circus animals are killed when the circus goes out of business.
Why? Oh because she guesses that’s what they do:
Based on the theory that if zoos are well run, they are at capacity, ergo excess animals are killed. She doesn’t work in a circus, mind you, but she just continues to convince everyone that everything they say actually serves to prove all of her theories! And then pretends through some mental acrobatics that you have actually been agreeing with her all along!

Concurrently, we have her valiant efforts to solve the debt crisis. See, the solution is just to stop spending.

No more, no less, just stop spending. See, because if bankruptcy is good enough to force everyday people to lower their spending, bankruptcy must be good enough to force the country to stop spending so much, equating it to the country to a petulant spendy wife “wanting to buy a new wardrobe every spring”. Just tell that foolhardy woman no!

She has about two whole pages of noteworthy quotes in the “Is Obama All That Different from other Presidents?” thread
My favorite, however, is her extensive crush on Casey Anthony. You remember Casey Anthony don’t you?The person everybody keeps following on the news because she is so charismatic.
Her obsession over all things Casey Anthony borders on psychotic, and the sheer number of personalized, creepy statements she makes about the case are simply astounding. Oh, she is also an expert in forensics and investigations of murder. And finding bodies in the woods:
Bolding mine.

Why is she so focused on the case? Well, it’s because she’s also creepily obsessed with other cases. As in all of them:
She also refers to Casey with statements that seem to imply that they know eachother, or at least that Susanann knows her better than anyone!

I could quote entire pages from that particular thread, because there are so many crazy entries. Feel free to share your crazy Susanann interactions.

Susanann, here’s a tip. Stop posting every insane thing that crosses into your tiny brain and then trying to trick everyone else into thinking they have actually been agreeing with you all along. Take some time off watching CourtTV and pretending you are a detective/judge/juror/forensic investigator and interact with actual people.
We know how much you hate Obama, and how you know the secret answer to all the big crimes on TV. Why, it’s so obvious, why can’t anybody see it besides you??

You fucking weirdo.

[Dewey_Finn]

@rachelellogram

There was a thread recently in GQ where she said Isaac Asimov had stolen the “every mammal lives to a billion heartbeats” theory from her, back in the '60s or '70s.

As Chronos suggested in that thread, perhaps Asimov determined this independently of her? And in fact perhaps she was not even the first one to calculate this number?

In the JonBenet Ramsey thread, she kept hinting that the solution to the mystery was obvious but never came out and explicitly said her theory.

And BTW, can someone please explain to her how to create a nested quote? Yes, they’re a bit of a pain but it’s a lot easier to read than the way she does it.

[Giraffe]

@chiroptera

…fat, ugly, friendless in real life, no social skills, no jobs, no hobbies except huddling in solitary in front of your monitors and obsessing about other online personas.

Hey! I have a job! :mad:

[chiroptera]

@Giraffe

Hey! I have a job! :mad:

Hey one out of seven is a win.

[Starving_Artist]

@Bosstone

This post utterly fails to surprise me.

There’s a difference, you know, between what Susanann proposed and how the OP restated it: one is perfectly reasonable; the other, idiotic.

If you’re on a fixed income - as the government is - you cannot borrow yourself into prosperity. And if you have to constantly borrow more money in order to cover your spending, you will eventually reach the point where you don’t have enough money coming in to pay your bills. We could have a 100% tax rate in this country, with the government providing for everyone’s existence (minimally, no doubt), and this government would still spend more than it takes in. That’s how its politicians buy votes. At some point responsibility has to come into play, and that responsibility has little choice but to take the form of reduced spending.

But I digress…

C’mon now, 'fess up. You are perfectly fine with people lying/unthinkingly exaggerating what someone else has said as long as the distortion creates a bias you favor, aren’t you?

I have to say that’s not really very sporting of you, old chum, here on the ignorance-fighting, smartest message board on the internet.

[jeredc1983]

I kind of feel sorry for her.

[Colibri]

@Dewey_Finn

As Chronos suggested in that thread, perhaps Asimov determined this independently of her? And in fact perhaps she was not even the first one to calculate this number?

It’s utterly, completely, and ridiculously absurd that Susanann ever published anything at all to do with any aspect of biology, let alone that Asimov might have picked up anything from her. In the nine years she has been a member, this is the first time I can recall seeing her claim expertise in any aspect of biology. And when I (and others) asked her to back up her claim, she (unsurprisingly) disappeared completely from the thread. Susanann’s level of knowledge of biology is shown pretty accurately in the incoherent post John Mace quoted a few posts above.

Here’s the claim she made:

[QUOTE=Susanann]
Asimov stole that from me. I myself first made that observation and I wrote a paper on it in the early 1960’s. But thank you anyway for your mentioning of my observation. My paper further went on to track variations, or lack thereof, among varying lifespans of different humans who had various levels of lifetime activity, various modal heart rates, and normalized to an average total number of human heartbeats factoring out accidents and some diseases.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that this probably indicates she is delusional, rather than someone who has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on mammalian physiology.

[chiroptera]

Is it surprising or unusual for people who immerse themselves in an online pseudo-life to be a tad unbalanced and even - essaentially, given the medium - delusional?

I assume anyone who spends vast amounts of time “communicating” with strangers online is not 100 percent mentally healthy or socially adept. Is it just me, or isn’t that obvious and a given?

@Colibri

It’s utterly, completely, and ridiculously absurd that Susanann ever published anything at all to do with any aspect of biology, let alone that Asimov might have picked up anything from her. In the nine years she has been a member, this is the first time I can recall seeing her claim expertise in any aspect of biology. And when I (and others) asked her to back up her claim, she (unsurprisingly) disappeared completely from the thread. Susanann’s level of knowledge of biology is shown pretty accurately in the incoherent post John Mace quoted a few posts above.

Here’s the claim she made:

I agree that this probably indicates she is delusional, rather than someone who has actually published a peer-reviewed paper on mammalian physiology.

[Andy_L]

@Colibri

It’s utterly, completely, and ridiculously absurd that Susanann ever published anything at all to do with any aspect of biology, let alone that Asimov might have picked up anything from her.

By the way, the idea that lifespan is inversely proportional to metabolism rate dates back to 1900 or so and a scientist named Max Rubner

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers

[Bosstone]

@Starving_Artist

There’s a difference, you know, between what Susanann proposed and how the OP restated it: one is perfectly reasonable; the other, idiotic.

Bullshit. “Reduce spending” isn’t a plan, it’s a slogan. Stating it as if it were the beginning and the end of the solution is flat-out idiotic. So it’s no surprise to me you’d think it reasonable.

@chiroptera

I assume anyone who spends vast amounts of time “communicating” with strangers online is not 100 percent mentally healthy or socially adept. Is it just me, or isn’t that obvious and a given?

So what the fuck are you doing here? If you have a life, go have it.

[John_Mace]

@chiroptera

Is it surprising or unusual for people who immerse themselves in an online pseudo-life to be a tad unbalanced and even - essaentially, given the medium - delusional?

I assume anyone who spends vast amounts of time “communicating” with strangers online is not 100 percent mentally healthy or socially adept. Is it just me, or isn’t that obvious and a given?

A tad? You call that “a tad”? She’s bonkers. So yes, it is just you.

[ElvisL1ves]

No mention of her being a birther, too? :rolleyes:

[PeskiPiksi]

Small bananas compared to the rest of this stuff, but I admit I chuckled a little when she claimed that it would beillegal to give false information to Pizza Hut.

[MEBuckner]

@chiroptera

Is it surprising or unusual for people who immerse themselves in an online pseudo-life to be a tad unbalanced and even - essaentially, given the medium - delusional?

I assume anyone who spends vast amounts of time “communicating” with strangers online is not 100 percent mentally healthy or socially adept. Is it just me, or isn’t that obvious and a given?

Yes, it’s surprising and unusual. Your assumption is almost certainly wrong. It’s just you.

For one thing, it’s the year 2011–everyone, including your Grandma, now spends more-or-less “vast” amounts of time “communicating with strangers online”. (Or not necessarily strangers, could be people they knew in high school.) OK, not literally everyone. I’m sure there are still people out there–even Americans–who have no truck with this new-fangled Interweb thing-y. But at this point, snarking about “people who spend all their time online” is becoming as silly as snarking about “people who spend all their time talking over them telephone wires to people on the other side of town–or even in the next county!”
And there are supposedly 10,000 or more “active members”, and even if we acknowledge that there aren’t really that many active members–that total includes a good number of spambots which registered yesterday and promptly got zapped by the mods–there are still a lot more active members than there are people who get Pit threads opened about them. There are WAY more active members than there are people who get Pit threads opened about them, and those threads wind up with posts saying “Oh, yah, s/he’s a complete nutcase!” outnumbering the posts which (even partly) defend the Pittee by at least eight-to-one.