🐮 Lolcow Timothy "TJ" Church / Cowlick - Failed Literotica Writer &/or Null's Best Friend

[Silver]

@Cowlick I am going to bother you until you answer my question

 

[Roger Rabbit]

Wow. Never have I seen somebody containing so much fail and autism in one human form. I'm starting to think TJ is the LOLcow god!

 

[RequiredName]

But there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone who get paid for writing; why is it so unlikely this forum's members might include some of them?

Because obsessing over the sexual inclinations of internet perverts is beneath the station of professional workers.

Permitting TJ to return ad infinitum gives the forum some semblance of activity beyond awaiting intermittent Failbook and Twatter posts from Christian Weston Chandler and Jace Conners-Andrews.

 

[Le Bateleur]

Because obsessing over the sexual inclinations of internet perverts is beneath the station of professional workers.

You're being sarcastic, yes?

Off the top of my head there's at least three published authors, a journalist, an editor and a professor of English Literature who regularly post here.

 

[Roger Rabbit]

You're being sarcastic, yes?

Off the top of my head there's at least three published authors, a journalist, an editor and a professor of English Literature who regularly post here.

Make that another person who has been published.

 

[MrsFrizzle]

Writers loooove lolcows. I'm part of another lolcow site (which, admittedly, is devoted to someone who's had media jobs) and about half the regular posters are writers. Including two Pulitzer winners! A lot of the others are lawyers or IT people.

 

[StallChaser]

Not to backseat mod, but shouldn't he just be banned? Most lolcows deliver interestin developments (or at least are capable of shifting arguments), but TJ is literally still stuck at line 1: "this thread shouldn't exist because I said so!"

Personally he's outgrown his entertainment value, and I wouldn't miss him if he were banned and the thread was just left to coast.

That's part of his entertainment value. Without his input, this thread would sink to the bottom. Even if he was banned, he's just create a new login. He has like 30 of them at least on that one writing forum. I don't think anyone's really investing much time &/or energy into this other than TJ himself. Letting the thread coast until he comes back to bump it is pretty much the best thing to do (and is generally what's being done).

Also, it's in the nature of religions like the Church of TJ not to change much.

 

[Have a Pepsi]

The question asks you to name a popular one, regardless of reason. Also, I was a popular one before I was ever actually here.

Secondly, simply search the thread, & see others posting they want me here &/or like having me here; I claimed that was the case, & it can be proven, regardless of reason(s).

Lastly, since everyone loves to correct me here (even when I'm right), let me point out the Fool mentioning how something that was written "sounds" to them.

Did you read the part where I said we don't like you as a person and the we only like your reactions? I think that was the whole thing.

 

[Mister Lister]

Once again the convoluted ramblings of ol' Timmy Cheese-Teeth never cease to amaze.

Never mind potential employers or girlfriends searching TJ and finding this thread (we all know there is never going to be either of those things anyway) just google 'tjchurch' and click on the Image tab.

80% of the images are Photoshop's from this thread. Glorious.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

For the record, I like having @Cowlick here. I enjoy watching him tell us how smart he is while not understanding grade school concepts. I love watching him tell us how well adjusted he is while living an obviously unhealthy lifestyle.

I love to watch FAIL, complete with commentary.

 

[RequiredName]

Writers loooove lolcows. I'm part of another lolcow site (which, admittedly, is devoted to someone who's had media jobs) and about half the regular posters are writers. Including two Pulitzer winners! A lot of the others are lawyers or IT people.

Please pardon me, but it just comes across as more one-sided than a boxing match against a quadruple amputee.

 

[MrsFrizzle]

Please pardon me, but it just comes across as more one-sided than a boxing match against a quadruple amputee.

Nobody's trolling that lolcow. It's really more of an anti-fan site, where people discuss what that person does and says in public social media, the occasional newspaper article, a short-lived television show, etc.; the only difference between it and a fan site is that instead of praising the lolcow's public presence, we find it silly.

I do think Christory is unusual in how involved his fans/anti-fans have been in his life.

 

[Konstantinos]

TJ, can you post some more pictures of yourself? We need more ammunition for photoshop!

 

[Chuggernaut]

Writers loooove lolcows. I'm part of another lolcow site (which, admittedly, is devoted to someone who's had media jobs) and about half the regular posters are writers. Including two Pulitzer winners! A lot of the others are lawyers or IT people.

Weird, sad &/or fucked-up things are a journalist's bread-and-butter. If you can convince a weird local shut-in to talk to you at length, you're basically guaranteed a longform article on your publisher's site.

 

[MrsFrizzle]

Weird, sad &/or fucked-up things are a journalist's bread-and-butter. If you can convince a weird local shut-in to talk to you at length, you're basically guaranteed a longform article on your publisher's site.

Yessssssssss. And this goes back to the early 20th century, at least; I have collections of articles by Joseph Mitchell, A. J. Liebling, H. L. Mencken, and other journalists of that era which have a high percentage of interviews with eccentric and/or delusional people because that stuff is always fascinating.

 

[Uzumaki]

You're being sarcastic, yes?

Anytime someone uses the phrase "beneath the dignity of professional writers" you can pretty much guarantee sarcasm. It's like a punctuation mark denoting sarcasm. It's like the thing in the 90s when someone would say something counter intuitive, then yell "NOT", of sarcasm.

 

[Ca Ira]

The Bible doesn't have books; It is a book

There's something seriously wrong with my book:

 

[ON 190]

Mr. Church, I have a hypothesis. You are, to put it in simple terms, lazy. Tenacious? By the effort you put into sockpuppet accounts and the time spent creating them, you are most certainly tenacious. Your laziness, however, cannot be called into question. Every assertion a member of this forum has put forth about you is met with a variation of "you may say that, but I say otherwise, so your belief is clearly not true." What this tells me is that you won't (or can't) put forth the effort of forming a cohesive argument to prove your point. You would rather fall back on "I say I'm right, therefore I am" because it's easier and takes far less time. If you put forth the time and effort into forming an honest argument you might actually show people that you aren't as bad as they say you are, and we'll forget about you.

You won't, though. You're lazy. I'll be able to tell by your answer to the following question, and if you can even be arsed to address my points.

Am I wrong?

 

[Xarpho]

I think he's just disagreeing with the convention of calling them "books" instead of like, chapters. The etymology stems from the individual chapters once having been their own books. The scripture was consolidated into one written work, titled the Bible. I don't think he understands that.

Each "book" of the Bible has its own chapters, so the oft-quoted John 3:16, for instance, is the 16th verse of the third chapter of the book of John.

 

[Cowlick]

Mr. Church, I have a hypothesis. You are, to put it in simple terms, lazy. Tenacious? By the effort you put into sockpuppet accounts and the time spent creating them, you are most certainly tenacious. Your laziness, however, cannot be called into question. Every assertion a member of this forum has put forth about you is met with a variation of "you may say that, but I say otherwise, so your belief is clearly not true." What this tells me is that you won't (or can't) put forth the effort of forming a cohesive argument to prove your point. You would rather fall back on "I say I'm right, therefore I am" because it's easier and takes far less time. If you put forth the time and effort into forming an honest argument you might actually show people that you aren't as bad as they say you are, and we'll forget about you.

You won't, though. You're lazy. I'll be able to tell by your answer to the following question, and if you can even be arsed to address my points.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you most-certainly are. Do I need to prove you're wrong? If so, the simplest way is to prove that much of what you wrote (that I quoted here) is/was wrong. This, for instance:

Every assertion a member of this forum has put forth about you is met with a variation of "you may say that, but I say otherwise, so your belief is clearly not true." What this tells me is that you won't (or can't) put forth the effort of forming a cohesive argument to prove your point.

I have formed many cohesive arguments in my head, as well as statements that (separately o&/or simultaneously) prove my statements about myself & disprove the statements of other members about me. I keep them in my head, on paper, etc. Unfortunately, I eventually take the link back here, only to find several new posts by members here that again give me the opinion/idea you would be unable to understand them.

Even if this were not the case, however, & I were to take it a step further & believe you were the highly-educated, highly-successful people some of you claimed to be,... What does it matter? As I have posted in the thread, in responses on my own profile, & in PMs with some of you, I would not be posting anything anywhere at all on this site if none of the members had made a thread about me, & that one person as well as another (even if there were only 2 posts, that's still more than one) publicly posted negative statements (followed by more negative statements, mocking statements, Photoshopped pictures, etc.) of me... If any single person had posted a positive opinion of me or a true fact about me, & these sort(s) of posts continued, I never would have registered, let alone posted here. Reading posts various places on the site/Forum, it appears nothing I say or do (or if I say/do nothing at all) will cause this thread to be rightfully removed (which would be the only way now for it to be nonexistent, as it should have been for the past 5-months-plus), so I have decided to not only post in response, but to post as the person that this thread described at its beginning.