Funny T-Shirts

Secretly control the TV,
anywhere, any time!

who really gives a sh*t?

I didn't want to respond but you are so pathetically funny. First I want to point out, "I suppose that all patriotism would look like fanaticism to you, because you are a mere coward who left the hardships of this country to pursue an easy life in a rich country." Why do you pity yourself? You feel like it's unfair that other people can go to other countries and other people can't? Do you feel it's unfair that you don't have the internet at home? Do you feel that you have to brush up on your english in order to respond to my replies because you are poorly
educated? If so, do something about it, don't whine how other people have it better than you. There are poor people like yourself everywhere but that doesn't mean they cannot break through the class barrier.

I posted 3 posts because it couldn't fit...as you figured out with your posts. Who struck the nerve?

Have you ever done something and didn't know why you did it? If a person has a mental illness and he does something wrong...does it mean that he had a motive? That he did it intentionally? Of course not. If someone has a seizure, do you think they know what they're doing?

You stated, "There is always a motive, or a reason, for killing." A motive for killing someone is different from the reason why he killed someone. A motive for killing someone is because he had an affair with my wife. A reason could be anything...he had a seizure and he accidentally shot him...he was sleepwalking. A reason is an explanation but a motive is an explanation involving intent or incentive.

"you then say that some murderers eat the body parts of their victims (although you only gave fictional examples). In other words, you are implying that Rizal was an organ-eater too, which is why he kept a kidney. If you're not, then why mention it in the first place?"

I stated, "Why would he keep the kidney? who knows. a souvenir perhaps. it's not alien for killers to take something from their victims...hannibal lecter ate his victims...the other guy took their skin off...it's their trip!"
1. I said a souvenir perhaps
2. Only hannibal lecter out of the two fictional characters ate his victims.
3. I stated, it's their trip...meaning they do whatever it is they want. Implying that if RIZAL did do it, then he could do whatever he wants with his victims.

You are grasping for something to throw back at me...but you've got nothing.

"You know, I notice you use this "It's only a theory" defense a lot. This is invalid. If it is a theory, why are you even mentioning it?"

If you were as intelligent as you say you'd know that a theory or a hypothesis is a guess which then leads to more scientific explanations of a certain phenomena or event. I mention it because there is a chance that it may be true. I never rule anything out. As i've stated before, I understand your viewpoint and I accept it. I do not however agree with your counter arguments because they are weak. You are stretching it, you take something out of context and you build an argument around it. My opinion on the subject is as I have said earlier. He could or he couldn't have. Just like in religion. There may be a god, or there may not be. Why must people always have to be so sure of themselves? Why does there only have to be one answer? You are afraid of the unknown.

"...the burden is on YOU to prove your theory, not ME to disprove it. That's how the judicial system works, or have you never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty", moron?"

lol what burden? i'm not trying to send Rizal to jail. innocent until proven guilty...of course but a suspect is still a suspect. I never claimed he did it...i said it was interesting and supported it with some facts that showed his character and his residence at the moment.

"Blah, blah, blah. "Fanatic". I suppose that all patriotism would look like fanaticism to you"

Blind patriotism would be fanaticism to me. Just because Rizal was our hero and a Filipino, you feel like he cannot do wrong. Wake up. "Never is a man or a deed wholly Samsara or wholly Nirvana; never is a man wholly a saint or a sinner."

"Aren't you also not litening to what I'm saying, hypocrite?" Apparently you are not listening because I've stated many times that I accepted your viewpoint.

"You are a fanatic because you continue to defend, against all evidence, your stupid theory."
I've given you facts of his residence and character. Give me something that denies those facts. You say the letter is false, fine...how about the rest? "He didn't do it because he is our hero" is not enough.

"of course, for some reason, you're not showing sources." I already showed you sources, read again.

"it is also known that jack the ripper was mason...which Jose Rizal was :D"
And finally, a last pice of proof that you're only trolling. If you were interested in sreious discussion, would you have put that smiley face?

I had put a smiley face on one of my comments therefore it cannot be taken seriously. LOL. I was being jocular. Again, you grasp into the air trying to catch me.

Name caller and a hypocrite you label me but it is you that ultimately succombed. What a rant. lol.

Again, I have taken your words and I have proved your arguments weak with valid explanations and examples. Your rebuttal is, "you are an idiot" or "it's absurd." I judge you based on what you have given me and I back it up with facts. Think of it as constructive criticism.

Show this thread to anyone and they will see that you are grasping into thin air, struggling to make a valid argument but in the end, you have failed. My viewpoints remain the same, maybe Rizal did it, maybe he didn't. I'm totally fine with that because I don't need to know everything. I'm not afraid to find out our national hero is not perfect. At the end of the day, I will still be who I am whether he did it or not.

"Our mistake would lie in supposing that what is radiant no longer exists because it has been explained from the shadow-side" - Carl Jung

Oh, you're back! And so soon, too! I thought you said "Farewell"?
You didn't want to respond, but you did anyway. Why don't you just admit the real reason, that you couldn't resist seeing if I had typed a response, and once you read it, you got so offended that you had to counterattack. Don't be. I'm only trying to help. I'm trying to teach you to learn how to not publicly humiliate yourself on the Internet in the future.
"Why do you pity yourself? You
feel like it's unfair that other people can go to other countries and other people can't?"
Well, that is unfair. But I can go to other countries. It's just that because I'm not a coward and a loser like you, and I still think there's hope for this country, I don't want to. Why do you jump to conclusions so quickly, imbecile?
"Do you feel it's unfair that you don't have the internet at home?"
I'm typing this from my house, imbecile. If I didn't have Internet at home, how could I post this? From a Net cafe? Maybe, but I'd like to know how you can find out where I'm posting from from my posts alone. Must be those super-genius psychic abilities again. LOL. Moron.
"Do you feel that you have to brush up on your english in order to respond to my replies because you are poorly educated?"
No, I don't. Funny you should say that, when you're the one making all the spelling errors, eh?
"If so, do something about it, don't whine how other people have it better than you."
I guess you did something about it... You left this country crying like a baby because you couldn't stand the living conditions here. But I'm not a loser like you are, so I won't do that.
"There are poor people like yourself everywhere but that doesn't mean they cannot break through the class barrier."
Woot! Amazing! You can tell how poor or rich I am from my posts alone! It's gotta be that genius-level IQ you've got!
Not. So much for your apology. Why do you resort to personal attacks, imbecile? Is it because you can't argue with me properly anymore? Is it because you no longer have anything sensible to say? Even if I were poor, which I'm not, does that have any bearing on what I'm saying? No. It's completely irrelevant. It is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. If we were in an official debate, you would have been disqualified for these personal insults already. It seems to me you're the one who doesn't know anything about debate.
Oh, and I can use personal attacks against you, because you started it. Blame yourself, retard.

Sooooo sad. A dumb person who thinks he's smart. That has got to be that saddest thing I've ever seen. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're the biggest and baddest of the bunch. You are not. You wouldn't be the stupidest, most arrogant person I've seen on the Internet. I've tackled trolls who used far more insulting language than you have, because that is the limit of your abilities. You are nothing but a small fry to me. I don't even have to break a sweat answering you.
I notice you've been pretty active on this page. Even thought not many people go here, since your first post in July 2006, you've been waiting for and responding to, usually rudely, anyine who responds to you. What't the reason for your interest in this topic anyway? Are you just trying to get attention? Well, if you are, the only reason I'm responding to you is that I have some spare time and want to amuse myself by humiliating idiots.
"Who struck the nerve?"
I did, because you took another 3 posts to respond.
And don't lecture me on the difference between reason and motive. I know what it is, and I don't need a self-important loser to tell me. That's why I included both. The thing is that there is neither reason nor motive for Rizal to have committed these murders.
"If you were as intelligent as you say you'd know that a theory or a hypothesis is a guess which then leads to more scientific explanations of a certain phenomena or event."
When did I say I was intelligent? Unlike you, I don't say I'm intelligent. But unlike you, I'm not dumb. I know what a hypothesis is. What I'm saying is that first, you act as though your theory were already proven, and second, this hypothesis is so dumb it should be dismissed immediately. Do you really think this evidence would stand up in a court of law? Not the letter of course, since the letter is so obviously false. If it were true, this matter would have been resolved already.
"I never rule anything out."
You never rule anything out? So you think it's possible that the sun rises in the west, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that water does not boil at 100 degrees C? What I'm trying to say is, there are some things that are false right away. This is one of them.
"Why must people always have to be so sure of themselves? Why does there only have to
be one answer? You are afraid of the unknown."
I think I'm beginning to understand you're position. Your position is that you have no position. You have all the facts on both sides, but you have no opinion. How convenient. Do you really have no opinion on anything? Are you trying to tell me that there is no thing you accept as true. Do you say that "The earth may or may not be round?", or "The earth may or may not revolve around the sun?"

"of course but a suspect is still a suspect."
And that's your problem. Even if you don't say he is the murderer, you still say he's a suspect. Why is he a suspect? I don't see how the facts you've shown point to his being guilty. If it's because he lived there at the time, for example... why, anyone living in London at the time was a suspect. Is that what you're saying?
"Blind patriotism would be fanaticism to me. Just because Rizal was our hero and a Filipino, you feel like he cannot do wrong. Wake up."
I'm awake. You are asleep. I don't think Rizal was perfect. He had many faults. (For example, he wasn't completely anti-Spain; he wanted the Spanish to continue ruling the Philippines. He just wanted them to rule fairly.)
But being Jack the Ripper was not one of them. Do you also believe he could have been the father of Adolf Hitler or Mao Zedong? Don't you think it's starange how a Malay could be connected to a Chinese, a Caucasian, and a person of unknown race, presumably Caucasian?
"I was being jocular. Again, you grasp into the air trying to catch me."
Should you really be "jocular" in a serious discussion? How am I "grasping" anyway?
"Name caller and a hypocrite you label me but it is you that ultimately succombed. What a rant. lol."
Yeah, right. You started the name calling, and you're still doing it up to now. Hypocrite. What a rant. LOL.
"Again, I have taken your words and I have proved your arguments weak with valid explanations and examples."
No, you haven't. Where are these "valid explanations and examples"?
"Your rebuttal is, "you are an idiot" or
"it's absurd.""
Which is the exact same thing you've been doing. That's all I really need to rebut your arguments. How dare you use debate terms like "rebut", when you don't even know anything about debate?
"Show this thread to anyone and they will see that you are grasping into thin
air, struggling to make a valid argument but in the end, you have failed."
Are you willing to bet on that? I wouldn't advise it, since it's obvious to anyone that between the two of us, you're the one grasping at the most circumstantial evidence, struggling to make a valid argument, and failing miserably.
No more excuses or lies. That's what you're good at. Just admt you lost.

Yes I was back so soon. After all, I don't believe in letting people continue to be close minded. If I didn't care, I'd be part of the problem. Publicly humiliate? Please. I don't live in cyberspace like other people. I just happen to have an e-mail address and whenever someone responds, I get a message. I have a laptop so I can go online pretty much anywhere with my national wifi access. You don't even know who I am so why do I care what you think of me personally. As for the argument, it is fun for me...the personal attacks are kinda fun too. There you really see how their response. This has been truly a great psychological and sociological experiment. I said sorry and I'm still learning and you were still mad lol.

As I have said before, only read what I have posted and the facts that go with them. You counter those FACTS with "it's absurd," "false," or "lies."

He is indeed a suspect...I think being at a certain place at a certain time would certainly make a person a suspect. Do you disagree? Of course he may not be convicted based on those facts alone but as I've already stated but a suspect is a suspect. I've also stated that If he was properly investigated at the time, who knows what could've happened. The subject is an unsolved crime in the past, very difficult to prove anything at this point.

Now you are understanding me...I don't have a position on things. You would say the sky is blue but is it really? What is blue? Just something you have been trained to learn and believe. Quantum Physics suggests that nothing is absolute. An atom can jump from A to B for thousands of years but in the next second it can jump to Z. Just like with David Hume's, problem of causation.


This is not a serious conversation. I said debate as a synonym for argument. I am not in the habit of using the same words over and over again. I was taught not to in school.(Like you stating imbecile over and over again.) It is redundant. Of course this theory is far more ludicrous than most. I believe that the chances are slimmer that he did it BUT there is still that chance. Who am I to say that it's 100% false. In fact, who are you to say that?

Though you haven't really responded to my real questions, and instead went ahead and attacked my personal attacks, your argument is null no? Do you agree with what I said then if you are not going to respond?

"And don't lecture me on the difference between reason and motive...That's why I included both. The thing is that there is neither reason nor
motive for Rizal to have committed these murders."

It didn't seem like you knew the difference..."In response to what I said, that he would need a
motive for doing so"

And how are you so sure of this? Did you know him personally? Ever speak to him? Isn't it weird that a person could be a genius or warm-hearted to the world but in person, they could be the opposite?

You grasp by twisting what I say and building your arguments around them. One of several examples is assuming that Rizal ate his victims was one of my opinions.

I never said I don't name call. I just said you did. How could I be a hypocrite? I never said I didn't do it. You however, labeled me a name caller, ergo, you shouldn't name call back as an anti-hypocrite.

You posted the 3 posts again...i'm down to two. lol. Looks like I hit a nerve again. If it were oil, I'd have more money. hahaha

You take this so seriously.

who the hell gives two craps ? This thing happened like a hundred years ago or something. I dont know Jose Rizal but I know you are both idiots.

Stop thinking your the sh*t online. eon, you think your better than filipino because you hav e money or believe that you do? money cant by you happniness idiot. filipino

you are dumb for addimg fuel to the fire. you talk and talk just like eon. i don't understand how a person can slander a hero of a country in some contries that would be ilegal but here you can do it freedom of speech ya know .


why dont all the people who read the comments comment on this blog or something so these 2 can shut the F up. everytime i go to museum of hoaxes i see these two positng


sometihmg. i think eon won only on what he claimed but the whole thing is stupid anywayzzz.

so which do you prefer, guns or knives? the discussion started good, until misunderstanding sets in and never went away. for jose's sake, its a just a discussion of an urban legend. also an open mind might have been entertaining, anyway not everything that are written on history books are always truthful as history is just the story of the winners, their own propaganda. i stumbled upon this item because i was googling for the truth about rizal as i do not totally trust history books. there was also a story about rizal failing a subject in the University of Santo Tomas, stories you wouldnt read from propaganda materials of history books trying to deify a hero with ultra superlatives. im not trying to bring rizal down, im just keeping an open mind. rizal is just human, he should have faults like we all do. you all should know how humans work, you are human too. now i would like to dig deeper in rizals life which had not been covered or tampered by history books. He was not so super as we are being led to believe. so, my question to you guys: would you take the blue pill or the red pill?

Adolf Rizal's right. just because it's in a book doesn0dt mean its 100% rightd

Just thought I'd point out -

No knows if Jack the Ripper was a Mason - that's just one (very far-fetched) theory.

He did keep half a kidney from Catherine Eddowes (he sent the other half to a newspaper office). However, according to his letter, he fried it and ate it (fava beans and a nice chianti weren't mentioned....)

Catherine Eddowes had no children, therefore no DNA to match.

Jack the Ripper was just as likely to be a woman as a man.

All foreigners were suspected of being Jack the Ripper (it was such a very 'un-English' crime!). Therefore, those women would not have gone down dark alleyways with a foreigner - Mary Kelly certainly wouldn't have invited one into her rooms. Whoever he, or she, was, the circumstances of the deaths seems to indicate that the killer was someone the women knew, trusted and believed to be harmless - probably someone they'd known all their lives, not the newly-arrived foreign stranger.

very interesting points indeed. though we don't even really know if the other half was catherine eddowes' kidney. It was found to be inconclusive. Some thought the kidney along with the "from hell" note was a hoax or macabre practical joke.

perhaps maybe stating the fact that the other kidney has been eaten would stop detectives from looking for it. dr. rizal could now walk away with a human kidney without suspicion.

Yeah pretty hard to tell who's kidney it is...what was suggested however was to DNA test Rizal's living relative and match it with anything they can get from the kidney that they found along with the "letter of confession" to confirm that it was Rizal's belongings.

Of course...Jack the Ripper could have been a woman.

Whitechapel was a very impoverished section of London. Mary Kelly along with all the other victims were prostitutes. I've seen and heard people do crazier things for money than have sex with a stranger. Even though people were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper, the show must go on. They still had to work to survive knowing the risks.

On a side note...Rizal was also extremely intelligent and was a "ladies man." What can I say, he knew what to say to the ladies.

Definitely Dr.JOse Rizal is NOT Jack the ripper!!!!

can we all start our statements with "what i've read"? because surely we all just read our information somewhere. It is funny that we present and defend our information as if it were an absolute fact. Let's have some fun and give credence to this idea if only on this web discussion as it is truly intriguing. Show that you are not a sheep, challenge the purported facts. embrace, welcome, and nurture new preposterous ideas as they may hold the truth.

Jen in Cebu: Definitely? hahaha wow that's the most incredible statement i heard so far. only their death is definite about humans. can you present more of what you've read to say definitely?

by the way...i spoke to a worshipful master(the head of a masonic lodge) about jack the ripper and he said that he believes he was a mason. However, his actions were of his sexual preference and not because of masonic preference. The timing of the murders he said had masonic meaning but were mere coincidences.

Please. This is getting tiring already. You think being "open-minded" constitutes not accepting anyhthing at all as true - that's why you're stupid. You say you don't care what I think, yet you keep coming back and responding to me - stop making excuses.
The whole thing was an "experiment" for you, you say? Oh well, I suppose that would be your tactic - to act like you're so much smarter than me and just playing me to see how I respond. Don't be so arrogant. I'm here because I want to be. As for why it took me a long time to respond, I was studying for my exams. Unlike you, I have to do work. LOL.
You said sorry, then you went and continued it anyway. LOL again. You don't understand the meaning of being apologetic, do you?
"As I have said before, only read what I have posted and the facts that go with them. You counter those FACTS with "it's absurd," "false," or "lies.""
This is where you make a mistake. Funny - you say you never accept anything as a given fact, and yet you say - in caps to boot - that what you said are facts. You are inconsistent, that's why you have lost this argument. Just admit it.
I get it. So basically, you believe a person is a suspect if he was in the same place at the same time as the crime - "same" here meaning the same city and same year as when and where the murders occurred. Well, if this is your definition of a suspect, of course Rizal would be one. Your definition is wrong, of course (do you also think that all the babies born in London at the time were suspects?)
"I am not in the habit of using the same words over and over again. I was taught not to in school.(Like you stating imbecile over
and over again.)"
Again you're wrong, because you do repeat words. And don't insult me, fool. I was aware that I shouldn't repeat my words, so for your benefit, I varied them.
"Though you haven't really responded to my real questions, and instead went ahead and attacked my personal attacks, your argument is null no? Do you agree with what I said then if you are not going to respond?"
"Thick-skinned". That's the only thing I can say about you. How immoral can you get? You have ben caught calling others names, and instead of being sorry, you accuse me of only responding to your personal attacks? How evil can you get, moron? Strange, I remember responding to your "real questions". What "questions" are these that you say I haven't responded to? Why don't you give an example? Are you just making it all up? Thought so.

"And how are you so sure of this? Did you know him personally? Ever speak to him?"
And how are YOU so sure of this? Did you know him personally? Ever speak to him?
LOL. Just turned you argument back on you. That's gotta hurt.
"I never said I don't name call. I just said you did. How could I be a hypocrite? I never said I didn't do it. You however, labeled me a name caller, ergo, you shouldn't name call back as an anti-hypocrite."
Look, you don't know the meaning of the word "hypocrite" (you know, the English word? Not the word you've got in your imagination?) so just shut up and stop acting like you know something. So what if you said you don't name call, you still do, and you said I do, when you started it, so you're a hypocrite. You can't deny that you name-call and that you started it, and you're not even pretending to be sorry anymore, so this is your next defense. Pathetic.
"You posted the 3 posts again...i'm down to two. lol. Looks like I hit a nerve again."
In your dreams. Actually, you only answered with 2 posts afterwards. Now I've only got 2 posts myself.
"If it were oil, I'd have more money.hahaha"
One of your problems is you care about money too much. Just a hint.
"You take this so seriously."
Isn't this a serious discussion we're having? The problem as I see it is that YOU don't take it seriously. Or, of course, you could always just admit that you're trolling and trying to provoke me. It's obvious anyway.

Suspect: a person who is suspected, esp. one suspected of a crime, offense, or the like.

Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

i.e. concerned Filipino are a hypocrite.