Man Avenges Ex-Girlfriend Live on C-SPAN
On today’s edition of When Nerds Attack, we have for you a rare specimen of reality television that is suited for C-SPAN’s Book TV in its delivery, but more like VH1 in its content.
Meet Helen Rittelmeyer and Todd Seavey: two members of a four-person panel discussing something irrelevant. What is relevant is the skill at which Todd lets his diatribe develop and gradually crescendo from the half-joke about Helen’s desire to increase suffering to the point where she’s asking if this is actually going to be on C-SPAN.
Yes, Helen. And youtube too.
For everyone else, here is your slow train wreck for the day. Note her shadow reacting on the blue background throughout the video, and her body language at 3:30 urging him to shut up:
562 votes
421 votes
191 votes
235 votes
133 votes
135 votes
131 votes
104 votes
87 votes
56 votes
-
Schvantzie
-
Adam
-
ZzZZzZz
Character assassination is only tool that the mindless mainstream Democrats have to offer. They ruthlessly conjure up pathetic lies and bullshit about their opponents, with hopes that their lies and bullshit won’t blow up in their faces, and that overall act is just pitiful.
Just look at what they tried to do to with Ron Paul and Rand Paul: “They’re racists!”, mainstream Democrats would try to claim; “Rand Paul kidnapped a woman!”, they would also try to claim.
Todd Seavey is pitiful, as well. He didn’t own his ex-girlfriend, he just made himself look like a classless punk. He couldn’t please or hold onto an ugly woman like her, now he is angry about it and venting it to the world; again, he’s just pitiful.
[Reply]
legitsharker Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 6:39 am@ZzZZzZz,
You are not making a good point. While it may be true that Liberals sometimes use “character assassination,” or ad hominem attack, as a debate strategy, conservatives do it just as much. If you had said “character assassination is the only tool that mindless mainstream people have to offer,” then your comment would be better, since it wouldn’t seem so blindly biased.
However, there’s still another problem, and that is that you DO generalize when you say, “ALL liberals do X,” which is exactly what you did. And I don’t see your logic when you try to excuse yourself, saying you were referring specifically to, “THEE mindless mainstream Democrats,” because “mindless Democrats” is still a group of people, and you are making a blind blanket statement about all of them, which is also known as a generalization.
You are able to use big words and correct grammer, as well as write coherently. However the content of what you’re saying commits numerous logical sins. I just hope to God you aren’t making dumbshit arguments like this one in public.
[Reply]
ZzZZzZz Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:34 pm@legitsharker,
I backed up my *alleged* generalization with specific examples. This means that my generalizations were rendered SPECIFIC and were no longer generalized.
How hard is that to understand? Obviously, it’s too hard for some of the mindless dolts around here to understand, huh?
I don’t expect to win awards for diligence in my writings, but I would appreciate it if ya’ll would begin using your brains to recognize what should be obvious, at some point in your lives.
For example, I didn’t state or imply “ALL Liberals X”, at least I didn’t state that which your quote represents, but — LEARN TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES — I was obviously referring to *The Mindless* Democrats, many of whom have gone mainstream with their über-mindlessness, like Todd Seavey just did. For example, Seavey not only looked like a classless unforgiving punk, but he also displayed the fact that he doesn’t understand basic Libertarian principles; I mean, he mocked his ex for supporting hookers, but was too dumb to realize that she is actually supports their _LIBERTY_ above any or all forceful dictatorships.
What’s more, back to what I said, “Mainstream Democrats” was a modifier for *The Mindless*; the fact that some of *The Mindless* happened to be “Mainstream Democrats”, so be it, poor them, but that still doesn’t make it a blanket statement against ‘ALL Liberals’ or ‘ALL Democrats’ — not by any stretch of a sane/knowledgeable imagination.
And, ‘Seavey’ and ‘the mainstream Democrats who called Ron Paul and Rand Paul racists’, each of them were modifiers for the subject *The Mindless*, too. The mindless buffoons who constantly forced O’Donnell’s clips from Politically Incorrect into our faces, they would be another great example of *The Mindless*. See the pattern, there? Comprende? Probably not, huh?
Reading and comprehending is difficult for *The Mindless*, obviously, so I don’t expect much from ya’ll. And, by “ya’ll”, I meant — specifically — ‘all of the __RETARDED__ posters here who displayed their unrestrained/uneducated stupidity toward me’ — you dumbshits.
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161]thorsjustice Reply:
October 25th, 2010 at 1:07 am@legitsharker,
of COURSE its blindly biased. this ZzzZZzz guys argument this ENTIRE forum is almost verbatim:http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/10/24/npr.analyst.comments/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Talk about regurgitating what your told.
But seriously zzzz…. no one is telepathic and will ‘read between the lines’ to know exactly what you meant… your the only nut job who truely understands whats going on in your brain. Especially with your hateful and condescending remarks … lets just be honest no one wants to read it go yell at your moms collection of stuffed animals if your angry.
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161] -
abdullah moqtasadeh
-
JaySin420
-
Nick
Definition of AVENGE
1
: to take vengeance for or on behalf of
2
: to exact satisfaction for (a wrong) by punishing the wrongdoerHe didn’t enact revenge for this ex-gf. Horribly worded
[Reply]
Viral DJ Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:40 pm@Nick,
Avenge is used correctly
I saw the comments on Digg and Reddit. In this post it is used in the second definition that you cited from M-W. It’s a transitive verb whose definition depends on the object.
If you use Ex-Girlfriend as the object and replace Avenge in the title with the second definition, you have “Man exacts satisfaction for (a wrong) by punishing Ex-Girlfriend Live on C-SPAN”.
That is what Todd did.
[Reply]
DougChristian Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 10:47 pm@Viral DJ,
“Man exacts satisfaction for (a wrong) by punishing Ex-Girlfriend Live on C-SPAN”.
GRAMMAR FAIL. Word order is important. You can’t just take the “exact satisfaction” meaning and add in a few extra words. The word which follows avenge determines the meaning. If it is followed by an action or event, you get the 2nd meaning as is “Avenge her death” = “exact satisfaction for (her death) by punishing…” But if it is followed by a person, as in “Avenge his ex-girlfriend” it gets the 1st meaning, ie “to take vengeance for or on behalf of (his ex-girlfriend)”.
Words mean something. You don’t get to make it up as you go along.
[Reply]
Viral DJ Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 11:00 pm@DougChristian,
You have it reversed. Action or meaning is first definition.
If I avenge *the death* of my brother, I retaliate against someone on my brother’s behalf. (1st definition)
If I avenge *my brother*, I retaliate against him for something he did. (2nd definition)
The object plays the same role in both cases–it is the impetus for my action.
By the way, your “grammar fail” is a grammar failure. :-)
[Reply]
VN:F [1.9.17_1161] -
http://wwe.com Ballsdeep Johnson
how did he “avenge” his ex girlfriend?
[Reply]
echoota Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:20 am@Ballsdeep Johnson (lol), That’s exactly what I’m trying to understand. Shouldn’t it be “gets revenge on”? I was expecting someone to make fun of her with a misogynistic comment, and then he goes all Nerd Rage on that person.
[Reply]
-
Eric
-
Pingback: Man Avenges Ex-Girlfriend Live on C-SPAN (VIDEO) « Godzgiftz's Blog
-
Bob
-
fjfjfj
Why does everyone who went to yale have to point it out at every opportunity? Plenty of retards graduated yale – it is a legacy school. Whether you went there has no bearing on anything else, and, in fact, I immediately stop listening to people who name drop their school as if it makes them better people.
In short, way to go, ugly dude, for owning that ugly chick.
Oh, and I’d love her to get rid of the crime of assault. I’d knock that bitch back to the rock she crawled out from under. I don’t advocate violence, unless it is directed at those advocating violence.
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161] -
Pingback: Guitar-Monster-Mike: Man Avenges ExGirlfriend Live on CSPAN VIDEO
-
Bill
Just thought I’d point out that this is a panel of conservatives…Todd Seavy isn’t a “Democrat” or a “liberal.”
At least not to my knowledge. Either way, you know this guy was saving this speech for awhile. :)
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161] -
http://gompsparky.wordpress.com/ SuperSparky
People say conservatives do character assassinations just as much as liberals. I beg to differ. Whereas most liberals conjure up false items to accuse others of, the conservatives usually have the proof to back up their so-called “smears”. It’s only a smear or character assassination if it’s false, but if it is part of their character or real actions, then it’s an expose, not a smear.
It would seem from Todd’s diatribe that he claimed multiple individuals could back up his claims. Now if this is true, then he was only exposing Helen’s true character (or lack thereof), not assassinating her character. Of course if it wasn’t true, then it was a character assassination.
The same rules must apply when people say “both sides do it,” and I must beg to differ. I see liberals make false accusations and smears as a matter of course. They usually throw them out in an attempt to shield the truth. Most conservatives, on the other hand, usually have the responsibility and character to back up their claims with facts. Citing facts and exposing them is not a character assassination.
Learn to recognize the difference between an expose (the exposure of something that is true) and a smear (a lie, a fabrication).
[Reply]
Sbabcock32 Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:18 amI would say that statement that conservatives usually being able to back up their claims is an exaggeration of the truth (as well as an unbacked up claim). I would like to remind you of the allegations made by member of the right in recent years that Obama was not an American citizen and he was also a closet Muslim. Those are some fairly sizable smears.
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161] -
Alexander
So, what I have to say, may go beyond what anyone here understands and/or believes in.
What he did here, was wrong, and inappropriate. This is basically a higher class “kanye west at the VMAs”, if you know what I mean.
Seriously? Bringing out personal life at this kind of an event on public television(even if it is a payed channel)?
What she was arguing for, wasn’t that getting in fist fights and murder are good, she was arguing that to keep the debating mind ready, you should play devils advocate. This does two things, you’ll learn, and so will your opponent, as long as you both are willing to modify your opinions in light of the way the debate turns out.
This isn’t a common opinion among conservatives, or really human beings for that matter. People all around America(i haven’t been to other countries so i cannot speak for them), are strongly of the “stick to your guns no matter how bad it may seem” side of things. This creates ignorance. She was simply proposing that you argue for the sake of learning(very Greek of her).
He seemed to propose something more like never arguing so you never have to admit your wrong, and just using ad hominem so you didn’t have to actually argue(very dark ages Catholic Church of him).
Now reconsider how appropriate his actions were.
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161] -
glonuk
I’m not political, but whatever the guy was, he’s petty, unkempt, and wrong to talk about his dating life in what is supposed to be an adult discussion, even if it involves the other party. It’s threadjacking, and childish name calling on top of that, and I have a lower opinion of his political stance because of it.
[Reply]
VA:F [1.9.17_1161] -
Kyle
-
http://twitter.com/Irish_711 Keith Madigan
-
Fasdfas
-
Pingback: C-SPAN Caller Wants to Know About Mitt Romney's Big Penis | Video Gone Viral
-
Adam
Check Out These Hot Stories From Our Partners
Video Search
VGV On Digg
Join Our Fan Page
Adam Hyatt Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
@ZzZZzZz,
You bemoan “character assassination,” yet you go on to generalize about “the mindless mainstream Democrats” and their “pathetic lies and bullshit.” Do you expect someone to respond to you like you’re a reasonable person?
Nobody wants to argue with someone with your attitude — be it you, the female panelist, or someone else — because you try to advance your opinions with unreasonable, counterproductive echoing of beliefs you half-heard on TV or the radio instead of logical thought progression and the ability to work WITH someone who disagrees with you.
This woman spent half her speech trying to pump up her status by name-dropping Yale and Edmund Burke, and the other half was just “I disagree with X, I disagree with Y, X and Y are liberals.” I don’t care where she went to school; her words give her away as a hack.
The coolest part about Todd Seavey’s speech is that he critiqued her entire belief system before even beginning to talk about their relationship and her infidelity. He destroyed her ideology before even beginning to question her character.
Somebody get this guy a Dos Equis.
[Reply]
ZzZZzZz Reply:
October 19th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
@Adam Hyatt,
I don’t give a flying fuck how you respond to me; you can exercise your brain all you want, you mindless heathen, and that will only make me proud of you.
What’s more, I didn’t generalize, I talked specifically about the mindless, such as, THEE mindless Todd Seavey and/or THEE mindless mainstream Democrats who called Ron Paul and Rand Paul racists.
You can now surmise, that I was talking about you, too, obviously, for — here you are — with your panties in a bunch — saying that nobody wants to argue with me, but you’re too dumb and mindless to recognize the fact that you’re trying to argue with me.
Use your mind, ignoramus, you’re not on the high ground here, and Todd Seavey certainly wasn’t, neither.
[Reply]
JGC Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 2:18 am
@ZzZZzZz,
You threw the tantrum, so you lost. Of course that’s to be expected from a lay conservative such as yourself. It’s obvious you only think with the nerve endings in your anus.
[Reply]
Stymie Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:09 am
Don’t feed the trolls.
moog Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
@JGC, Also, ZzZZzZz’s punctuation is all over the map. Double lose.
ZzZZzZz Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
@JGC,
Okay, you’re right, Deanna Troi — my post was a silly tantrum!
It’s so amazing that you’ve sensed my emotions through the Internet!
Anyway, it’s nice to meet you, btw!
I loved your skintight outfits!
Say “Hi!” to Worf for me!
ZzZZzZz Reply:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
@moog,
My use of punctuation is very important.
10/10 Mindless dolts agree!